Rectification of apparent mistake upheld where prior compounding was ignored and penalty on the driver/incharge failed.

A rectification provision could be used to correct an apparent mistake where the Tax Board had overlooked the admitted fact that the transporter had already compounded the matter on the same facts and the Revenue had accepted that payment. The Court treated the rectification as a correction of record, not a disguised review, and upheld the revised order. It also accepted the concurrent factual finding that there was no collusion between the driver/incharge and the transporter, so the penalty challenge against the driver/incharge could not be sustained. The Revenue's petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tax Board could rectify its earlier order under the rectification provision on the ground that the transporter had already compounded the matter on the same facts, and whether the penalty imposed on the driver/incharge could still be sustained.

Analysis: The vehicle was intercepted and proceedings were initiated under the sales tax provisions relating to interception, penalty and notice to the transporter. The transporter later compounded the case by paying the compounding fee, and that material had been accepted by the Revenue. The rectification order proceeded on the basis that the earlier order had ignored this admitted fact. In such circumstances, the Court held that the Tax Board was justified in correcting the apparent mistake and that the earlier order could not be revisited as a review under the guise of rectification. The record also supported the concurrent factual finding that there was no collusion between the driver/incharge and the transporter.

Conclusion: The rectification order was upheld and the penalty challenge failed. The Revenue's petition was dismissed.

---