Unconstitutional levy and rectification limitation: assessments were vulnerable to correction, and refund claims were held within time.

A levy imposed under a provision later declared unconstitutional was treated as a nullity from inception, so assessments made under it were held to contain an error apparent on the face of the record and could be rectified with consequential refund. The Court further held that limitation for rectification ran from the order of the authority competent to entertain the application after final disposal, and applications filed within three years of the Appellate Tribunal's order were within time. The petitions succeeded, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal with consequential reliefs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assessments based on a levy later declared unconstitutional disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record so as to permit rectification and refund. (ii) Whether the applications for rectification were barred by limitation under the relevant rectification provision.

Issue (i): Whether assessments based on a levy later declared unconstitutional disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record so as to permit rectification and refund.

Analysis: A levy made under a provision subsequently declared unconstitutional is treated as a nullity from the beginning. The fact that the assessment order was passed before the constitutional invalidity was judicially declared does not prevent the defect from being apparent on the record when the matter is later examined. The Court relied on the principle that a law enacted beyond legislative power is dead from inception and proceedings taken under it cannot stand merely because the declaration of invalidity came later.

Conclusion: The assessments suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record, and rectification with consequential refund was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the applications for rectification were barred by limitation under the relevant rectification provision.

Analysis: The limitation period had to be computed from the date of the order of the authority approached for rectification after the assessment had attained finality. Since the Appellate Tribunal was the relevant authority and the applications were made within three years of its order, the applications were within time.

Conclusion: The rectification applications were not time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal with consequential reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment made under a provision later declared unconstitutional is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, and limitation for rectification runs from the order of the authority competent to entertain the rectification application after final disposal.

---