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 notices issued under section 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to amend completed assessments and withdraw composition benefit were valid when they were based on a subsequent circular and not on a mistake apparent from the record.
Analysis: Rectification under section 25-A is confined to an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to reopen an assessment on a debatable point or to substitute a different view of the same facts. The power is quasi-judicial and must be exercised independently by the assessing authority, without being controlled by instructions or directions of a higher authority. A later circular cannot operate as a retrospective legislative amendment or as a basis for disturbing completed assessments, and the authority could not rely on it to revise assessments already concluded. As regards the later assessment, the authority had already formed the view that the dealer was eligible for composition benefit, and that view could not be changed in rectification proceedings merely because a circular had later come to notice.
Conclusion: The notices were without jurisdiction and invalid, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Rectification can be made only for a mistake apparent from the record, and it cannot be used to revise a completed assessment on a change of opinion or on the basis of a subsequent circular.