TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Section was under considerable debate in a long line of decisions and as of now, it is a fairly well settled proposition that the scope of review is different from that of rectification as the review permits re-writing of the order for re-hearing of the case and in that, the important facts not available earlier, could be taken into account - the mistakes which will not fall within the parameters mentioned above, can only be rectified by filing an appeal or revision and this would equally apply when the matter pertains to the jurisdiction of the authority or validity of law. In certain cases, the writ Courts have entertained challenge to such orders in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Equally well settled is the legal position that a mere change of opinion or facts even if new facts come to notice, cannot be a ground for reopening much less a case for rectification - decided in favor of the dealer and against the revenue. What is the other remedy available to the revenue in case they are of the opinion that the revised assessment orders are prejudicial to the interest of revenue? - Held that: - The only power available for the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company (1982 Vol.51 STC 381), considered the scope and powers of the appellate authority as well as the assessing authority with regard to acceptance of 'C' Forms and whether it could be done at the appellate stage. After elaborately considering the scope and purport of Section 8(4) of the CST Act, it was pointed out that where the assessing authority is satisfied in a given case about the existence of sufficient cause to allow further time for 'C' form to be filed, it must necessarily be followed up by appropriate action such as reopening the assessment already completed. The implementation, in appropriate cases, of the power to allow further time cannot be withheld on the excuse that there is no express provision either in the statute or in the statutory rules for reopening the assessment. When the power is there and the facts are there demanding its exercise, the implementation must be done as a matter of course, on the doctrine of implied or ancillary powers. 4. In Vispro Foundry Engineers Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Adyar Assessment Circle, Madras, reported in 1991 Vol.81 STC 169, following the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustained. It appears that after the order was passed, the petitioner was able to secure some more 'C' forms and produced the same periodically before the assessing officer which has been given credit to in respect of the relevant turnover and assessed the petitioner to lesser rate of tax by way of passing the revised assessment orders. It appears that after a new officer took charge as assessing officer of the petitioner, the impugned notice has been issued. 7. Two aspects arise for consideration, firstly as to whether the respondent could have invoked the powers under Section 55 of the TNGST Act for issuing the impugned notice. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, then the petitioner has to submit to the jurisdiction and give their reply to the impugned notice. If the answer to this question is in the negative, then it has to be seen as to whether the Department has any other remedy under the provisions of the TNGST Act. Section 55 of the TNGST Act deals with powers to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. This power is exercisable by the assessing authority or the appellate authority or the revisional authority within five years from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and he submitted returns for the year 1961-62 to 1965-66 under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and he was assessed to tax on the returns. Subsequently the petitioner therein filed appeals for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63. For the other three years, viz. 1963-64 to 1965-66, the petitioner therein did not challenge the assessments, but paid the tax for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the petitioner therein and set aside the assessments. Thereupon, the petitioner therein filed an application before the appropriate authority for rectification under Section 55 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Rule 5(9) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957 for rectification of the error apparent in the orders of assessment for the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. The authority rejected the application which was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Court affirmed the order passed by the authority rejecting the writ petition, pointing out that the error that is referred to in Section 55 is an error which is apparent in the order of that authority, and in the absence of no such error to be rectif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
