9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents. The facts leading to the controversy are the following: The petitioner is a tyre manufacturer. They were engaged in purchase of rubber from Kerala during the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Rubber is an item taxable at last purchase-point in the State and the petitioner was paying tax on the last purchases along with monthly returns filed by them. The Government had issued notification dated November 30, 1999 granting exemption from tax on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of rubber products in the State from State Trading Corporation Limited for the period from September 1, 1997 to October 31, 1999 subject to certain conditions to be proved with documents. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing exemption on the purchase turnover of rubber from State Trading Corporation. The assessing officer rejected it holding that there is no mistake in the assessments warranting rectification under section 43 of the KGST Act. Against the order rejecting the claim for exemption, appeals were filed, which were dismissed by the first appellate authority and the second appeals filed before the Tribunal were also dismissed against which these revisions are filed. The only question to be considered is whether the claim of exemption not made in the returns filed or at any time before completion of assessment is a mistake that could be corrected by the assessing officer under section 43 of the KGST Act, which is as follows: "43. Power to rectify a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, assessments were completed based on the returns filed. For the first time, a claim for exemption was made before the assessing officer, nearly after an year of completion of assessment. The petitioner did not file appeal against the assessments to claim exemption because time for filing appeals was also over. What is clear from the above provision is that only mistakes apparent on the face of the record could be corrected in rectification proceedings. A claim of exemption that is not raised before the assessing officer at any time before completion of assessment does not constitute part of the record. In fact the claim was put forward before the assessing officer for the first time nearly after one year of completion of assessment which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Mattancherry [1972] 30 STC 93 (Ker); [1972] KLT 289 and also a single judge decision of the Madras High Court in Ramco Cement Distribution Co. P. Ltd., Rajapalayam v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Rajapalayam [1974] 33 STC 180 (Mad). The Madras High Court held that if claim for exemption is available under rule 60, it could be allowed even in rectification proceedings. The Government Pleader on the other hand relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Lalita Dalmia v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi (Central) reported in [1981] 132 ITR 139 (Delhi), wherein it is held that the exemption cannot be claimed in rectification proceedings. We are not persuaded by the decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
