TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... errors can be made within four years from the date of the order, provided there is a clerical or arithmetical error in the order. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent that the petitioner has come to the court at a belated stage may not be correct. But, the issue is whether there was a clerical or arithmetical error in the order dated 20.3.2018. The material placed before the court would show that the petitioner herein never challenged the assessment order wherein the petitioner was demanded to pay a sum of ₹ 2,34,369/- as CST for the assessment year 2013-2014. The said order has become final. For reasons best known, two years later i.e., in the month of October, 2020, the petitioner made a request for the relief referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king Writ Petition No.19201 of 2020 as a lead petition. 2. The Writ Petition came to be filed to declare the action of the 1st respondent in passing the proceedings, dated 20.3.2018 (A.O.No.104417) for the tax period 2013-14 under CST Act, 1956, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act and Section 2(m) and Section 51 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, as without jurisdiction and consequently, to set aside the same. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : The petitioner is an approved unit under the sector of Specific SEZ for building products, developed by M/s.APIIC Limited in Annangi Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh holding LOA No.26(D)/76/2011- SSSEZ(VSEZ)5437 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Admittedly, in the year 2018, the 1st respondent passed an order of assessment holding that the petitioner has to pay tax to an extent of ₹ 2,34,369/-, after deducting the total amount of the monthly payment already made by the petitioner towards the tax for that year. The said order has become final as no appeal was filed challenging the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the 1st respondent. Two years later, the petitioner herein made a representation/application stating that the demand made by the 1st respondent is not enforceable as the unit of the petitioner is situated in Special Economic Zone and that order needs to be rectified. Referring to Rule 60 of the A.P. VAT Rules, the counsel would contend that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking correction of errors can be made within four years from the date of the order, provided there is a clerical or arithmetical error in the order. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent that the petitioner has come to the court at a belated stage may not be correct. But, the issue is whether there was a clerical or arithmetical error in the order dated 20.3.2018. 9. A perusal of the representation/application made by the petitioner before the assessing authority two years after passing of the assessment order, seeking exemptions, is as under: 1. Ours is a SEZ unit located in APIIC Building Products SEZ which is a customs area and the very application of the CST Act does not arise. 2. The said transactions ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand made is not executable against the petitioner. If that is so, the remedy for the petitioner would be to challenge the order passed by the authority in the year 2018. But, without doing so, allowed the order to attain finality and thereafter, has come forward with a request in the form of a representation indirectly seeking reopening of the assessment. If the said representation is allowed to be adjudicated, the same would amount to reviewing of the assessment by the very same authority, who has passed the assessment order or reopening of the assessment. In the absence of any provision for reviewing the order, we hold that there is no error, falling within the parameters of Rule 60 of A.P. VAT Rules, warranting interference under Art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
