TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not have been construed to be a mistake apparent on the record and was not liable to be rectified in exercise of power under Section 21-A of the Act. Even if the earlier view was an erroneous view in law, it was, as per the aforementioned decisions, not amenable to be corrected in exercise of the power under Section 21-A. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - CWP No.1020 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2016 - Mr. Rajesh Bindal and Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ. K. L. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Sandeep Goyal for the petitioner. Piyush Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. JUDGMENT The short question raised in this petition is whether the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') could have validly exercise its jurisdiction while deciding the rectification application, filed under Section 21A(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, the Act ). 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Sales Tax laws and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of oil. For Assessment Year 1999-2000, it filed its returns of sales with the Assessing Authority, Rop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-A). It was only on 15.4.2002 that Section 5(3) was included in Rule 29(xii). 5. It was argued before the Tribunal that the omission of Section 5(3) in Rule 29(xii) was clearly an inadvertent mistake, which was rectified vide notification dated 15.4.2002. Hence, the notification dated 15.4.2002 being in the nature of a clarification ought to be given retrospective effect. On behalf of the Revenue it was argued that as Section 5(3) was incorporated in Rule 29(xii) only on 15.4.2002, it did not cover the case of the petitioner, which related to the assessment year 1999-2000. 6. The Tribunal in its order dated 30.04.2004 held in favour of the petitioner observed as under:- ... ... ... It is true that the notification dated 15.3.2002 including section 5(3) in rule 29(xii) is subsequent to the assessment proceedings of this case and have not been given retrospective effect. However, since under Rule 29(xi) goods notified under section 5 (1-A) and 5(3) are both eligible for adjustment of the tax already suffered when they are subsequently sold or purchased it seems that the claim of the ld. counsel for the applicant that section 5(3) had not been earlier included along with s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of a wrong interpretation of law which could clearly be termed as a patent error which makes the correct rectification application entertainable. Accordingly, the rectification application is accepted. The order of the Tribunal is modified and it is held that the revision petition filed by the dealer did not merit any consideration and the same is dismissed...... It was held that the earlier order making the said amendment in rule 29(xii) applicable retrospectively, without there being any such provision, was a patently wrong order, based on a wrong interpretation of law which could clearly be termed as a patent error. Hence the rectification application was maintainable. The earlier order dated of the Tribunal dated 30.4.2004 was modified and the revision petition was dismissed. 8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed in the rectification application is wholly unsustainable. He argued that the jurisdiction under Section 21- A of the Act is limited to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, but in this case the successor Presiding officer has entered into the merits of the controversy. The order reflects a change of opinion. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Courts. 12. In CCE v. RDC Concrete (I) (P) Ltd., (2011) 12 SCC 166 the Supreme Court was construing Section 35-C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per which the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the date of the order, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it and shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party to the appeal. 13. Explaining the scope of the power under the aforesaid section, it was held that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and is quite obvious. The mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long-drawn process of reasoning. It was held that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. It was specifically held that incorrect application of law can also not be corrected. The Court observed as under: 21 . This Court has decided in several cases that a 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 proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
