Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner, after the amendment, was the proper authority to rectify a mistake in an order already passed and concluded by the Commercial Tax Officer.
Analysis: Rule 18(1) empowered an assessing, appellate or revising authority to rectify, within three years, any mistake apparent from the record in an order passed by that authority. The later amending provision transferred only pending appeals or applications to the Deputy Commissioner and did not authorise him to reopen, revive, or deal with matters already disposed of and finally settled. The scope of the Deputy Commissioner's authority was therefore confined to the cases expressly transferred by the statute, and he could not assume a wider successor jurisdiction to correct completed proceedings of the former authority.
Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner was not the proper authority to invoke Rule 18(1) in respect of the concluded assessment order, and the rectification was without competence.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the dismissal of the revision was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A successor appellate authority can exercise rectification powers only within the limits expressly created by the amending statute, and cannot reopen or rectify closed matters unless the statute clearly confers that power.