Assessment time limit under Rule 6(5) rejected; review unavailable absent an error apparent on the record.

Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules was construed as fixing the stage for assessment after the close of the year, not as creating a one-year limitation for completing assessment; the references to re-assessment in Rule 6(7) and Rule 6(8) did not convert it into a limitation provision. On review, the court reiterated that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot substitute for appeal, and no error apparent on the face of the record was shown because the later challenge was outside the case originally pleaded and argued. The review petitions therefore failed and the earlier decision remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules prescribes a one-year limitation for completing assessment; and (ii) whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules prescribes a one-year limitation for completing assessment.

Analysis: Rule 6(5) requires the assessing authority, after close of the year, to scrutinise the return or returns and complete assessment for the preceding year or the year to which the return relates. The provision speaks of the stage at which assessment is to be undertaken and the reference to the preceding year is only descriptive of the relevant return period. It does not contain any express period of limitation. The references in Rule 6(7) and Rule 6(8) to re-assessment within four years do not convert Rule 6(5) into a one-year limitation provision.

Conclusion: Rule 6(5) does not prescribe a one-year limitation for completing assessment.

Issue (ii): Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference.

Analysis: The review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. The challenge raised in review was not the case pleaded or argued in the earlier proceedings, and the earlier understanding that Rule 6(5) did not fix a specific limitation was consistent with the pleadings and grounds then advanced. No manifest error was shown on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and review interference was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The review petitions failed on merits and the earlier decision remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A review will not lie in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record, and Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules must be read as fixing the stage of assessment after close of the year, not as creating a one-year limitation period.

---