9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the respondent invoking the powers conferred under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act ( TNGST Act in short), on the ground that the order of assessment passed by the assessing officer dated 31.03.2004 is without jurisdiction, as the original order of assessment dated 31.10.2002 which was appealed against, is merged with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 25.11.2003 by which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly allowed the appeal and remanded the assessment back to the Assessing Officer for giving credit to the 'C' Form declarations produced by the petitioner, and partly affirming the turnover and the tax levied as 'C' Form declarations were not produced for the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne 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 decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company (cited supra), it was held that the petitioner therein was entitled to seek reopening of the final assessment and the only thing that would determine whether the assessment should be reopened or not was the existence of sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The assessing authority was however, required to consider the case and to say whether the cause in his opinion was sufficient to reopen the assessment or not. Following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to permit the petitioner to file the Form 'C' declarations for the said turnover of Rs. 1,64,790/- and directed the assessing officer to pass fresh orders after verification of the Form 'C' declaration, and the remaining part of the assessment orders was sustained. 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clerical and arithmetical errors in the original orders and such corrections can be made by what is available on record and not on account of facts not on record. What is more important is that the expression used in Section 55 is error apparent on the face of the record . When a question arose as to what is the error to say apparent on the face of the record, it was observed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Meenambal & Co., (1984) 56 STC 82 Madras, that error which can be rectified under Section 55 must be an error which is shown apparent on the very face of the record, and it is a wonder how the error had crept in, when it could have been avoided even in the first place. The Courts have also considered the case where errors cannot be rectified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority 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 rectified, the authority was correct in rejecting the petition under Section 55 of the Act. 9. The interpretation given by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e record, but the matter where there are disputed legal questions. Therefore, the respondent is not justified in invoking Section 55 of the TNGST Act. 11. Having answered the first question in favour of the dealer and against the revenue, it has to be seen as to 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. The only power available for the Department is to invoke Section 32 of the TNGST Act, which deals with special powers of the Deputy Commissioner which gives suo motu jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner, respectively to scrutinize the orders of the assessing officer passed under various Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
