TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as "the Act") dated May 10, 1995 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab. 2.. M/s. Sangrur Banaspati Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer"), the respondent No. 2, is a dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Its assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 was completed by the Excise and Taxation Officercum-Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no mistake apparent from record in its order dated March 31, 1992. Meanwhile, the dealer had also filed an application under section 21 of the Act requiring the Sales Tax Tribunal to refer certain questions of law arising out of its order dated March 31, 1992 to this Court. The said application was also declined by the Tribunal by its order dated April 28, 1994. Thereafter the dealer moved this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pass the impugned order on various grounds. It has been firstly contended that the impugned order is barred by time. For this purpose it was pointed out that a plain reading of subsection (1) of section 21-A of the Act shows that the mistake, if any, in an order could be rectified within 2 years from the date of such order. In this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctification of mistakes.-(1) The Commissioner or the officer on whom the powers of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 21 have been conferred by the State Government may, at any time within two years from the date of any order passed by him, of his own motion, rectify any mistake apparent from the record, and shall within a like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994. The impugned order having been made on May 10, 1995 is invalid and void ab initio on this ground alone. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the said order. 7. In view of the fact that the impugned order has been quashed on the ground of limitation, we do not find it necessary to address to various other objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8.. With t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
