Rectification of incorrect tax credit and limits on writ review where disputed deposit facts require statutory appeal

Rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act may be initiated where the assessment record, including supporting file material, shows that tax credit was wrongly allowed because the challans were not reflected in treasury records. The note also states that demands under rule 41(8), section 8(8) and rule 45 may still be worked out even if rectification is time-barred. Where the dispute turns on whether deposits were actually made, the matter raises disputed questions of fact unsuitable for article 226 review, especially when a statutory appeal under section 9(1) is available; the appellate remedy is therefore the proper course.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could validly be initiated to rectify assessment orders where the credited tax payments were found not to have been entered in the treasury records. (ii) Whether the impugned demands under rule 41(8) and section 8(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be challenged in writ jurisdiction when disputed questions of fact remained and an alternative statutory remedy was available.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could validly be initiated to rectify assessment orders where the credited tax payments were found not to have been entered in the treasury records.

Analysis: Section 22 authorises rectification of a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed period. The record for this purpose is not confined to the assessment order alone but extends to the relevant material on the assessment file. Where the daily collection register and treasury verification showed that the challans on which credit had been given were not received through the treasury, the apparent incorrectness of the credit furnished jurisdiction to initiate rectification proceedings.

Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings under section 22 was within jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned demands under rule 41(8) and section 8(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be challenged in writ jurisdiction when disputed questions of fact remained and an alternative statutory remedy was available.

Analysis: Rule 41(8) operates after assessment and permits the difference between assessed tax and deposited tax to be realised or refunded. Even if rectification under section 22 had become time-barred, the liability to pay the balance tax could still be worked out under rule 41(8), rule 45, and section 8(8). The controversy turned on whether the alleged deposits had in fact been made, which raised serious disputed questions of fact not suitable for determination in proceedings under article 226. A statutory appeal under section 9(1) was available, and delay in filing such appeal was directed to be condoned because of pendency of the writ petitions.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for adjudication on merits and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders and demands were not interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were left to pursue the appellate remedy under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax credit is shown to be incorrect on the basis of the assessment record, rectification proceedings may be initiated; but where the controversy depends on disputed questions of fact and an effective statutory appeal exists, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised.

---