TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard has reviewed its own order which is impermissible in law. - scope of rectification, in my view, is limited and the matter though can be rectified on a mistake apparent, obvious and glaring but every mistake cannot be corrected/rectified by the Tax Board. Even re-appreciation of same material is not permissible - mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning. Under the Act Review is impermissible or coming to a totally different conclusion what was reached earlier. Earlier view cannot be changed in the garb of rectification unless there is a glaring and obvious mistake apparent on the face of record - rectification impli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation so offered and levied turnover tax and surcharge on the assessee which was challenged before the DC (A). 4. The DC (A) also upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer and came to the conclusion that the option given by the assessee, was almost after two years, being opted on 11/03/2004 whereas the assessment pertains to the year ended on 31/03/2002 and accordingly rejected the contention of the assessee. However, the DC (A) held that benefit to the extent of 30 lakhs is to be granted in view of the notification and beyond 30 Lakhs the turnover tax and surcharge was upheld. 5. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tax Board who vide order dt.8/05/2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record including the order passed by the Tax Board dt.08/05/2007 and the impugned order dt.27/01/2009, in my view, the Tax Board was not justified in passing the impugned order by holding that a mistake apparent on the face of record, was committed by the Tax Board in order dt.08/05/2007 and has corrected the earlier order of the Tax Board dt.08/05/2007. 10. I have perused the impugned order and notice that the Tax Board in the impugned order has considered what was not before the Tax Board who decided the appeal vide order dt.08/05/2007. In my view, only a mistake apparent on the face of record can be rectified but I notice in the present order that the Tax Board has reviewed its own order which is impermissible in law. 11. It is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a dealer in any way, shall not be made without affording him an opportunity of being heard. 13. On perusal of the above Section, it is quite clear that the scope of rectification, in my view, is limited and the matter though can be rectified on a mistake apparent, obvious and glaring but every mistake cannot be corrected/rectified by the Tax Board. Even re-appreciation of same material is not permissible. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Makkad Plastic Agencies (supra), observed as under:- Both the aforesaid two decisions which were rendered while considering taxation laws are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is also now an established proposition of law that review is a creature of the statute an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the submissions which were made before the CESTAT by the respondent-assessee while arguing the rectification application were also advanced before CESTAT when the appeal was heard at an earlier stage. The arguments not accepted at an earlier point of time were accepted by CESTAT after hearing the rectification application. It is strange as to how a particular decision taken by CESTAT after considering all the relevant facts and submissions made on behalf of the parties was changed by CESTAT. There was no mistake apparent on record when CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods manufactured by the assessee should not have been engaged as a cost account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reached earlier. Earlier view cannot be changed in the garb of rectification unless there is a glaring and obvious mistake apparent on the face of record. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balram (supra) held as under:- A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [1960] 1 SCR 890 ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
