TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications. The High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the issue as to whether Aluminium powder can be regarded "metal in primary form" for the purpose of payment of tax. There is no need to adjudicate that aspect in view of the fact that the rectification done in purported exercise of Section 22 of the Act is clearly impermissible. Appeal allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 5607 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2007 - Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Additional Advocate-General and T.L. Viswanath Iyer and Dinesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocates (Y. Raja Gopal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders under Section 22 and levied tax treating the Aluminium powder as an unclassified item. The First appellate authority in the appeals filed by the assessee held that Section 22 of the Act had no application and the assessments were set aside. The present respondent filed appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Varanasi Bench (in short the 'Tribunal') which were also dismissed. In the revision petitions filed, as noted above, the High Court held that action under Section 22 of the Act is clearly sustainable. It referred to a decision of this Court in M/s. Karam Chand Thapar Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. [(1976) 4 SCC 257] and held that a decision of this Court can be a ground for rectification of error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further that no such rectification as has the effect of enhancing the assessment, penalty, fees or other dues shall be made unless reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the dealer or other person likely to be affected by such enhancement. (2) Where such rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment, the assessing authority concerned shall serve on the dealer a revised notice of demand in the prescribed form and there from all the provisions of the Act and rules framed there under shall apply as if such notice had been served in the first instance. (Underlined for emphasis) 7. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) held that Section 22 of the Act did not contemplate rectification of debatable issues and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectification must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning. The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tiruymale [AIR 1960 SC 137] need to be noted : An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under Section 22 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. As observed by this Court in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent from record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
