TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2010 - RAO AND RAMESH RANGANATHAN V.V.S. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by V.V.S. RAO J. The petitioner is a value added tax dealer on the rolls of the respondent. They are engaged in the business of purchase of motor vehicles as lessors and leasing the vehicles to the customers/clients on payment of lease rentals. For the period from November 2007 to August 2009 the respondent passed an assessment order under section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the VAT Act). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 12915 of 2010. This court stayed the collection on condition of the petitioner-company depositing a sum of Rs. 1 crore (rupees o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Taxes (Legal) [2006] 42 APSTJ 14, Kamadhenu Feeds (P) Ltd., Narakoduru, Guntur District v. Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhichowk Circle, Tenali [2007] 45 APSTJ 62, and S. Lalaiah Co. v. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroornagar Division, Nampally, Hyderabad [2007] 45 APSTJ 116). Laying considerable emphasis on these judgments, counsel assails the impugned endorsement. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission. The compliance with the rules of natural justice is not a straight-jacket formula to be used to strike down quasi-judicial or administrative action. If the petitioner fails to show the prejudice caused by such non-compliance, the court can even interpret the requirement of compliance with the natural justice as directed (see State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be given to the person concerned and to be provided with an opportunity of being heard. When the provision is very clear, it is not possible to construe the rule as mandating a notice or a reasonable opportunity of being heard in cases other than those where the tax liability or penalty is enhanced. The reliance placed by the counsel on the decision of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in M.K. Venkatachalam [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC); AIR 1958 SC 875 is misconceived. It was a case where the Supreme Court interpreted section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The said provision enabled the authority to suo motu rectify a mistake apparent from the record. The purport of mistake apparent from the record error apparent on the face o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act. But such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act. . . In an unreported judgment in Arora Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Abids Division, Hyderabad (W.P. No. 10717 of 2010, dated July 30, 2010 Since reported in [2011] 37 VST 113.), a Division Bench of this court to which one of us (RR, J) was a member, considered rule 50 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, which is ipsissima verba of rule 60 of the Rules. Construing rule 50, it was held (page 122 in 37 VST): In order to attract rule 50, the mistake must exist and the same ust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. A decision on a debatable point of law, or a disputed question of fact, is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something which appears ex facie and is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification. (Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 10 VST 751 (SC); [2008] 2 SCC 439). We have considered the factual background of the present case in the light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
