9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER These batch of writ petitions are directed against the order dated 26.9.2003 and consequential orders passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. Mr.Ashish Shrivastava and Mr.Neelab Dubey, learned counsel appearing for their respective petitioners, would submit that initially the Board of Revenue allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and held that the petitioners are not liable to sales tax. However, an application was filed by the Department for making reference on the question of law and arguments were heard on the application of the Department. In the meantime, after hearing of the arguments, the Department moved another application for rectification of the order passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal, on that application, the Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 71 of the Act of 1994 which reads as under:- "Sec. 71 RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES (1) The Commissioner may - (i) On his own motion at any time within one calendar year from the date of any order passed by him; or (ii) On an application made by a dealer within one calendar year from the date of receipt of such application, rectify such order for correcting any clerical or arithmetical mistake or any error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission: Provided that the Commissioner shall not entertain any application by the dealer unless it is made within one year from the date of the order sought to be rectified: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... educing the amount of tax, the Commissioner shall in the prescribed manner refund any amount due to the dealer. (5) Where any such rectification has the effect of enhancing the amount of the tax or reducing the amount of the refund, the Commissioner shall recover the amount due from the dealer in the manner provided in Section 32. " 6. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 27.1.2000 granted claim for set off in favour of the respective writ petitioners. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur (CG) filed applications in all three cases under Section 70(1) of the Act of 1994/under Section 44 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 before the Board of Revenue for referring the question of law to this Court. Refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as served to them, by which they are prejudiced as they could have been shown that application for rectification filed before the Board of Revenue under Section 71 (3) (a) and (b) of the Act of 1994 was barred by limitation. Even otherwise, original application was filed for making reference to this Court, in that event, application for rectification ought not to have been entertained by the Board of Revenue that too without statutory notice prescribed under the Act of 1994 to the petitioners. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 26.9.2003 and consequential orders passed by the Board of Revenue qua the petitioners herein are hereby set aside. In view of subsequent development, instead of Board of Revenue, the matter is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
