Rectification under VAT law cannot rely on a later clarification; post-order material cannot justify enhancement of liability.

Rectification under Section 69 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act is confined to mistakes apparent from the existing record and cannot be used to reopen a reassessment on the basis of a later Commissioner's clarification. Because the clarification was issued after the reassessment order and was not part of the record when that order was made, it could not supply the jurisdictional basis for rectification or support enhancement of liability. The legal effect is that post-order material cannot convert an otherwise impermissible exercise into a valid rectification.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment could be sustained by invoking rectification power under Section 69 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the basis of a Commissioner's clarification issued after the reassessment order.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 69 is confined to a mistake apparent from the record and must proceed on material that existed when the original order was passed. A later clarification, not forming part of the record on the date of reassessment, cannot be treated as the basis for rectification. Since the entire exercise was founded on a subsequent clarification issued after the reassessment order, the case fell outside the statutory scope of rectification. The later clarification could not convert the matter into a permissible rectification, nor could it support enhancement of liability under Section 69.

Conclusion: Reassessment by way of rectification on the basis of post-order clarification was impermissible and unsustainable; the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the existing record and cannot be exercised on the basis of material or clarifications that come into existence after the original order.

---