TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a second application for rectification after rejection of the first rectification application was maintainable and within limitation under section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959; (ii) whether the question of prospective effect under section 52(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, which had not been decided earlier, required reconsideration by the Tribunal.
Issue (i): Whether a second application for rectification after rejection of the first rectification application was maintainable and within limitation under section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis: Section 62 confers a limited power to rectify only mistakes apparent from the record and permits such exercise within two years. Once the first rectification application was rejected, the same order could not be subjected to a successive rectification application. Even otherwise, the second application was filed beyond the statutory period measured from the appellate order and also beyond two years from rejection of the first rectification application.
Conclusion: The second rectification application was not maintainable and was barred by limitation; this conclusion is against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the question of prospective effect under section 52(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, which had not been decided earlier, required reconsideration by the Tribunal.
Analysis: The ground regarding prospective operation of the Commissioner's order was specifically raised but had not been adjudicated in the earlier appellate and rectification proceedings. Since that issue remained undecided, it could not be finally foreclosed merely because the later rectification application was invalid. The proper course was to send back the matter for limited reconsideration of that unanswered ground.
Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the limited question of prospective effect; this is in favour of the assessee for the purpose of remand.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, but the matter was remanded for a limited rehearing on the unanswered question of prospective effect, while the earlier decided points were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power of rectification confined to mistakes apparent from the record cannot be invoked through successive applications, and an undecided substantive ground must be separately adjudicated rather than treated as concluded by an earlier unreasoned omission.
TaxTMI 
