Mandatory rectification notice in prescribed form and no revival of cancelled assessment through rectification power.

A rectification notice under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act had to be issued in the prescribed statutory form, so a summons form could not validate proceedings that increased assessment or liability. The prescribed form for such notice was mandatory, and the defect could not be cured by treating a different form as sufficient. The rectification power also could not be used to revive an earlier provisional assessment that had already been cancelled on reopening, because section 17 allowed correction of apparent mistakes only, not restoration of a non-existent order. On that basis, the impugned rectification action and related orders were held invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notice under section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 had to be issued in the prescribed form and whether use of a summons form could validate rectification proceedings; (ii) Whether the assessing authority could, by invoking section 17, revive and incorporate an earlier provisional assessment that had already stood cancelled on reopening under section 10C.

Issue (i): Whether notice under section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 had to be issued in the prescribed form and whether use of a summons form could validate rectification proceedings.

Analysis: Section 17(3) required notice in the prescribed form before any amendment enhancing assessment or increasing liability could be made. Rule 67C specifically prescribed Form S.T. 33 for such notice. Form S.T. 12 was a summons form and did not answer the statutory requirement for rectification notice. The saving provision relating to defects of form could not be used to substitute one form for another where the statute expressly required a particular notice for rectification proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice issued in Form S.T. 12 was not a valid notice under section 17, and the rectification action was invalid against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessing authority could, by invoking section 17, revive and incorporate an earlier provisional assessment that had already stood cancelled on reopening under section 10C.

Analysis: Once the application under section 10C was accepted, the earlier assessment made under section 7B ceased to exist and stood cancelled. A subsequent attempt to use section 17 to incorporate that cancelled order into the later assessment was beyond the scope of rectification, because section 17 permits only correction of a mistake apparent from the record and not the revival of a non-existent order. The action was therefore an impermissible use of the rectification power.

Conclusion: The assessing authority had no power under section 17 to revive the cancelled provisional assessment, and the impugned order was illegal.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the assessee obtained complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific form of notice for rectification proceedings, that form is mandatory, and the rectification power cannot be used to revive or incorporate an assessment order that has already been cancelled on reopening.

---