Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (3) TMI 315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e goods were liable to tax under entry 16 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act at 12 per cent under section 5(3A) of the Act during the relevant period. In respect of the goods, which were sold to a registered dealer for use by the latter as component parts, they were subjected to levy at a concessional rate of 3 per cent under section 5(3A) of the Act. The assessing officer made an order of assessment scrutinising the declarations filed by the dealers to whom the goods were sold and taxed the turnover under section 5(3A) of the Act at 3 per cent. The supply made to others of the same goods was however taxed at 12 per cent. The assessment was completed by the assessing officer on 27th August, 1977, and the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in Bangalors Motor Accessories v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [1981] 47 STC 54. It was urged by the petitioner that it was entitled to the concessional rate of tax on production of declaration in form No. 37 issued by the purchaser and the non-user of the goods by the purchaser for manufacture of any other goods inside the State for sale, as required under section 5(3A) of the Act, was immaterial. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the order of the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the assessment and withdrawing the concessional rate, should therefore be rectified in view of the decision of this Court in Bangalore Motor Accessories' case [1981] 47 STC 54 referred to above. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ), in which the Division Bench held, "when once the declaration is made by the buyer in the prescribed form and the same is furnished by the assessee in the assessment proceedings, no other proof of any other circumstances could be insisted upon by the assessing authority to extend the benefit of the concessional rate of tax. If the assessee furnishes the required declaration, he will automatically be entitled to the concessional rate of tax and such declaration which is in accordance with rule 38-A of the Rules shall be binding on the assessing authority". It was argued on behalf of the respondents by the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri Dattu, that there was no error apparent on the record calling for rectification. According .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the said order. It is only after this Court rendered its decision in Bangalore Motor Accessories' case [1981] 47 STC 54 on 21st August, 1980, that the petitioner sought rectification in the light of this Court's decision. Therefore, the question for further consideration is: whether the law laid down by this Court could form the basis for such a rectification? A few facts would be necessary in order to appreciate the contentions put forward by both the parties. From the assessment records produced by the learned Government Pleader it is seen that the business of the petitioner mainly related to manufacture and sale of polyurethane foam sheets. The petitioner supplied the said goods to various parties and obtained form No. 37 from them .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... law laid down by this Court. The error apparent can be both of fact as well as law. It is well-settled that an order can be rectified on either ground. If the revisional order made under section 21 in this case was not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court, such an order could be rectified under section 25A within 5 years from the date of the order in which the mistake had occurred. On the facts of this case, though the assessee had not filed any appeal against the order of assessment he could ask for rectification of the assessment order if it was a case falling under section 25A of the Act. The two decisions of the Madras High Court relied upon by Sri Dattu have no bearing on the facts of this case, whether there was an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates