Rectification of revisional tax orders is available where the order conflicts with binding law and shows an apparent error.

A revisional order withdrawing concessional sales tax was held capable of rectification where it conflicted with later binding law and therefore involved an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court accepted that such an error may be one of law or fact, and that the rectification provision under section 25A could be invoked even without filing an appeal against the revisional order. It further noted that the purchaser's non-use of the goods for the declared purpose was governed by section 5(3B), not as a basis to deny rectification. The refusal to rectify was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order withdrawing the concessional rate of tax could be rectified under the rectification provision on the ground that it was contrary to the later binding law and hence involved an error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The petitioner had furnished the prescribed declaration forms and the assessing authority had originally granted the concessional rate under section 5(3A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The revising authority, acting under section 21(2), withdrew that benefit on the ground that one purchaser had not used the goods for the declared purpose. The Court held that an error apparent may be one of law as well as fact, and that if the revisional order was not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court, it was amenable to rectification under section 25A. The Court also held that the consequence of non-use by the purchaser was governed by section 5(3B), and the petitioner could seek rectification even without having filed an appeal against the revisional order.

Conclusion: The revisional order was capable of rectification under section 25A, and the challenge to the refusal to rectify succeeded.

---