Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after the appellate order of the Tribunal had affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) retained jurisdiction under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to rectify his earlier order.
Analysis: Section 22 empowered the assessing, appellate or revising authority or the Tribunal to rectify a mistake apparent on the record in its own order within the prescribed period. Once the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had been carried in appeal and confirmed by the Tribunal, the earlier order stood merged in the order of the Tribunal. In that situation, there was no subsisting order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) capable of rectification by him. If the Revenue was aggrieved by the omission of surcharge, the matter ought to have been pursued before the Tribunal or in revision against the Tribunal's order, not by invoking rectification before the lower appellate authority.
Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had no jurisdiction to rectify the merged order, and the rectification order was unsustainable. The challenge by the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: An order which has merged in a higher appellate order cannot thereafter be rectified by the inferior authority under a rectification power confined to that authority's own order.