TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Department's attempt to reopen the Settlement Commission's order by invoking section 154 was sustainable, and whether the alleged waiver of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C could be treated as a mistake apparent from the record.
Analysis: Rectification under section 154 is confined to obvious, patent and glaring mistakes apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be used where the alleged error depends on assumptions, investigation into facts, or debatable questions of law. The Department's application proceeded on the premise that the Settlement Commission had wrongly waived interest, but that premise required examination of the basis of the original settlement order, the possible role of the Board's circular, and the legal effect of later decisions. Such matters could not be resolved within the narrow rectification jurisdiction. The finality attached to an order under section 245D(4) could not be disturbed by converting rectification into a review exercise.
Conclusion: The rectification order was not sustainable and the attempted reopening under section 154 failed. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 154 can be invoked only for a patent mistake apparent on the face of the record, and it cannot be used to reopen a concluded settlement order on a debatable issue or on the basis of later judicial developments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
