1990 (5) TMI 216 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside orders, directs fresh assessment under Tripura Sales Tax Act. Emphasizes rectification beyond legal errors.

Subhas Chandra Paul Versus State of Tripura

Subhas Chandra Paul Versus State of Tripura - [1991] 82 STC 13 (Gau) Issues:1. Rectification of mistake apparent from the records under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.2. Interpretation of the term 'mistake' under section 12(1) of the Act.3. Whether a mistake of fact can be rectified under section 12(1) of the Act.4. Determining if the mistake is apparent from the records.5. Validity of orders rejecting the petition for rectification.6. Direction to consider the revised return and conduct a fresh assessment.7. Requirement for the petitioner to submit an authenticated copy of the revised return.Detailed Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, was assessed for the year ending March 31, 1979, based on the original return instead of the revised return, leading to a dispute regarding rectification of the apparent mistake. The petitioner's application for rectification was rejected by the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner of Taxes, prompting the filing of a writ petition challenging these decisions. The primary issue was whether the mistake in considering the original return instead of the revised return was rectifiable under section 12(1) of the Act. The Court examined the nature of the mistake, emphasizing that section 12(1) does not limit rectification to mistakes of law only, and a mistake of fact apparent from the records can also be rectified.The Court further deliberated on whether the mistake in this case was indeed apparent from the records. It was unequivocally established that the failure to consider the revised return, which was filed before the assessment was completed, constituted a clear mistake. The Court emphasized that once a return is revised, it supersedes the original return, making the error evident on the face of the records. The judgment highlighted that rectifying such a mistake does not necessitate complex investigation or argumentation; it is self-evident and falls within the purview of rectification under section 12(1) of the Act.Regarding the rejection of the rectification petition by the tax authorities, the Court found their reasoning untenable and set aside their orders. The Superintendent of Taxes was directed to reconsider the revised return, allow the petitioner to present supporting evidence, and conduct a fresh assessment in compliance with the law. Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of the revised return not being traceable in the tax records and directed the petitioner to provide an authenticated copy within two weeks to facilitate the assessment process. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed on either party, concluding the legal proceedings in favor of the petitioner.