Notice is mandatory for rectification that enhances tax liability, but recovery on an unchallenged order may still stand.

Rectification of an arithmetical error that increases tax liability under section 43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act requires notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, because the proviso applies once enhancement results. The article also notes that recovery proceedings based on an unchallenged rectification order are not without authority of law merely because the order may be vulnerable to challenge. Delay and laches further weighed against writ interference. On that reasoning, the rectification order was treated as defective for want of notice, but the recovery action was not quashed and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order rectifying an arithmetical mistake and enhancing the tax liability could be made without notice under section 43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. (ii) Whether recovery proceedings could be quashed when the rectification order remained unchallenged, on the ground that the recovery was without authority of law.

Issue (i): Whether an order rectifying an arithmetical mistake and enhancing the tax liability could be made without notice under section 43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 43 permits rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record, but where the rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment, the proviso requires notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The omission corrected by the assessing authority was an apparent arithmetical error, but the consequence of the correction was an enhancement of the amount payable. The reasoning adopted in the cited Supreme Court decision under the corresponding provision in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applied to hold that notice was mandatory even in such a case.

Conclusion: The rectification order was bad for want of notice and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether recovery proceedings could be quashed when the rectification order remained unchallenged, on the ground that the recovery was without authority of law.

Analysis: The recovery action rested on the rectification order. So long as that order remained in force, the recovery could not be treated as one without authority of law merely because the order might be liable to challenge. The authorities relied on by the petitioner concerned assessments or demands that were themselves void for want of legal authority, which was not the position here. Delay and laches in invoking writ jurisdiction also weighed against interference.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were not liable to be quashed on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, as the court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and upheld the recovery action notwithstanding the defect in the rectification order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where rectification under a taxing statute results in enhancement of liability, notice and hearing are mandatory, but recovery proceedings based on an unassailed order are not without authority of law merely because the underlying order may be vulnerable to challenge.

---