Rectification proceedings commence on a timely overt act, not actual service of notice, and remand with fee refund was upheld.

Rectification proceedings under the special limitation provision were held to commence when the authority took a legally effective overt step within time, such as issuing notice, and not only upon service of that notice on the assessee. The Tribunal's remand of the rectification matters for fresh disposal after hearing the assessee was upheld because the proceedings had been validly initiated within the statutory period. The Tribunal's unexplained refusal to refund the institution fee was unsustainable, and a refund was directed under the relevant rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings to rectify mistakes in orders made before the commencement of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1970 could be said to have commenced only on service of notice of the proposed rectification on the assessee; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in remanding the rectification matters to the appellate authority for fresh disposal after hearing the assessee; (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining refund of the institution fee paid in the appeals before it.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings to rectify mistakes in orders made before the commencement of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1970 could be said to have commenced only on service of notice of the proposed rectification on the assessee.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1970 prescribed a special limitation for commencing rectification proceedings in respect of earlier orders. The language of that provision did not make the commencement of proceedings dependent on service of notice on the assessee. The words used were construed as permitting the proceeding to be originated or begun by any overt act within time, including the issue of notice, and the object of the provision would be defeated if commencement were made contingent on actual service.

Conclusion: No. Rectification proceedings were held to commence within time once the authority took an overt step to initiate them, and service of notice on the assessee was not a condition for commencement.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was right in remanding the rectification matters to the appellate authority for fresh disposal after hearing the assessee.

Analysis: Since the rectification proceedings had validly commenced within the statutory period, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the premature rectification order and remanding the cases for disposal according to law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing was found unobjectionable. Authorities relied upon by the petitioner concerned different statutory schemes and did not govern the present provision.

Conclusion: Yes. The remand was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining refund of the institution fee paid in the appeals before it.

Analysis: The Tribunal gave no reason for refusing refund of the institution fee, although it had authority under the relevant rule to grant such refund when the appeals were remanded. The absence of reasons made the refusal unsustainable.

Conclusion: No. The Tribunal was directed to refund the institution fee.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed in substance, with only a limited direction for refund of the institution fee, and the Tribunal's remand order was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: For rectification proceedings under a special limitation provision, commencement occurs when the authority initiates the proceeding by a legally effective overt act within time, and does not depend on actual service of notice on the affected assessee unless the statute expressly so provides.

---