TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Authority to Rectify Typo in Tax Order, Considers Petitioner's Circumstances</h1> <h3>M/s. Cobra Personnel And Intelligence Service Versus Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa, Goa And Assistant Commissioner, Central CST, Goa</h3> M/s. Cobra Personnel And Intelligence Service Versus Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Additional Commissioner, ... Issues:Challenge to order on adjustment of service tax installment; Typographical error leading to further liabilities; Availability of alternate remedy under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994; Rectification application filed by the Petitioner; Decision on rectification application pending.Analysis:The Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa, regarding the adjustment of the second installment of service tax. The Petitioner, a security service provider, faced a typographical error in the record of the Authorities where a deposit of Rs. 1120101/- was incorrectly recorded as Rs. 120101/-, resulting in additional liabilities for the Petitioner.The Respondents raised a preliminary objection citing the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. This section empowers the Central Excise Officer to rectify mistakes in the order. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner could have sought rectification within two years of the order or filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).The Petitioner had indeed filed a rectification application on 20 August 2016, within the stipulated period. Although the Respondents argued that the document was more of a representation than an application, the Court noted the circumstances of the Petitioner, a cancer patient at the time of making the representation. Section 74 does not specify a particular format for rectification applications, allowing the Central Excise Officer to rectify mistakes upon being informed by the Assessee.Given the pending decision on the rectification application, the Court directed the Respondent-Authority to decide on the representation dated 20 August 2016 within eight weeks. The Authority was instructed to consider the details provided in the Petition and clarify the nature of rectification required. The Court made the rule absolute in these terms, without imposing any costs on the parties involved.
TaxTMI 