1986 (2) 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

..... usiness in foodgrains. The original assessment order was passed by the assessing authority on 11th March, 1980. The applicant feeling aggrieved by the assessment order preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who by his order dated 3rd February, 1981, allowed the appeal in part and reduced the turnover. The Commissioner of Sales Tax feeling aggrieved preferred a second appeal under section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal which by an order dated 23rd October, 1982, affirmed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and dismissed the appeal. After the order of the Tribunal it appears that the Commissioner of Sales Tax felt that though the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) by his order dated 3rd February, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erical or arithmetical under section 22 of the Act. Before deciding the controversy it would be necessary to refer to the relevant portion of section 22 of the Act which reads as under: "22. Rectification of mistakes.-(1) The assessing, appellate or revising authority or the Tribunal may, on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person rectify any mistake in its order, apparent on the record within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified: Provided that where an application under this sub-section has been made within such period of three years, it may be disposed of even beyond such period: ....................." From a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is evident that the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unal. I cannot subscribe to the said proposition advanced on behalf of the Revenue. This fact has not been disputed that no revision challenging the order of the Tribunal was filed by the Revenue in this Court. One very glaring feature of this case is that the Revenue had filed an appeal under section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). If the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had committed any error in not imposing surcharge on the assessee even though the turnover fixed by him was more than Rs. two lacs, the Revenue could have agitated that point in the second appeal as well before the Tribunal but the said plea was never raised. In view of the aforesaid facts once the findings re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X