TMI Blog1965 (12) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Commissioner is set aside, except in regard to items (b) and (e) mentioned in paragraph 7 of his order. - Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1965 - - - Dated:- 16-12-1965 - SUBBA RAO K., SIKRI S.M. AND SHAH J.C. JJ A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (B.P. Maheswari, with him), for the appellant. Dr. V.D. Mahajan and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J.- This appeal, by special leave, raises the scope of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under rule 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. The facts may be briefly stated. The appellant is a private limited Company carrying on bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it was filed only by one of the directors whereas it should have been filed jointly by all the parties. On May 15, 1962, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, respondent No. 2 in this appeal, in a revision filed against the said order, set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer and held that the appellant was entitled to the refund applied for and directed the said officer to issue refund payment orders as early as possible. On January 5, 1963, the said Commissioner issued a notice to the appellant under rule 83 of the said Rules calling upon him to show cause why the order dated May 15, 1962, should not be reviewed. On September 24, 1963, the said Commissioner reviewed his previous order and held that the appellant would be entitled to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y correct arithmetical and clerical mistakes and errors apparent on the face of the record arising from an accidental slip or omission. But the Commissioner in the instant case, practically reheard the revision and came to a conclusion different from that which he had arrived on the earlier occasion. (2) The conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner are not correct both on law and on facts. Mr. Mahajan contended that the order made by the Commissioner was within the scope of his jurisdiction for he had only reviewed the previous order in respect of the amounts not paid by the appellant to the Sales Tax Authorities and in respect of those amounts directed to be repaid under a misapprehension that the said amounts were the subject-matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l slip or omission made by the court. The obvious instance is a slip or omission to embody in the order something which the court in fact ordered to be done. This is sometimes described as a decretal order not being in accordance with the judgment. But the slip or omission may be attributed to the judge himself. He may say something or omit to say something which he did not intend to say or omit. This is described as a slip or omission in the judgment itself. The cause for such a slip or omission may be the judge's inadvertence or the Advocate's mistake. But, however wide the said expressions are construed, they cannot countenance a re-argument on merits on questions of fact or law, or permit a party to raise new arguments which he has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12(1) and section 12(7) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and held the period of limitation would commence from the date of the orders made thereunder respectively. So holding, he came to the conclusion that the assessment under section 12(7) were made final by November, 1951; and an application for refund of the said amounts covered by the said assessments was barred by limitation. In respect of assessments made under section 12(1), except in regard to Rs. 299-11-0, he held the claim was bar- red by limitation. In regard to item (b), as it is a clear mistake, the learn- ed counsel for the assessee conceded both in the court below and before us that the amount covered by that item may be disallowed. Item (c) relates to the assessments made for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds: (i) that the application for refund in respect of certain amounts was barred by limitation; and (ii) the assessee was not entitled to a refund of the amounts paid before the assessment orders were made on the ground that the said amounts were not the subject-matter of the appeals wherein the assessments were set aside. Both the question of limitation as well as the question of construction of the appellate orders and the impact of those orders on the amounts paid towards tax before the assessments were arguable questions of fact and law. The Department should have raised the said questions before the Commissioner at the time he first made the order directing refund of the amounts claimed by the assessee. The wrong conclusion, if an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
