Rectification for apparent tax error upheld where assessment ignored a clear notification rate on ACR conductor sales.

Rectification powers may be used to correct a patent mistake apparent from the record where tax was assessed at 2.5% despite a notification prescribing 4% on sale of ACR conductor. The mistake did not require reappraisal of evidence or a fresh merits determination, and equity could not override the clear statutory and notification-based tax incidence. The Tribunal erred in setting aside the rectification order on the ground that the selling dealer should not suffer for the purchasing dealer's lapse, because the issue concerned an admitted tax liability and a clerical or apparent error within the limited scope of rectification jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assessing Authority could invoke rectification powers to levy tax at 4% on the sale of ACR conductor in view of the notification dated 07.03.2005; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the rectification order passed by the Assessing Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Authority could invoke rectification powers to levy tax at 4% on the sale of ACR conductor in view of the notification dated 07.03.2005.

Analysis: The rate applicable under the notification was 4%, whereas the transaction had been assessed at 2.5%. The error was visible from the record and did not require reappraisal of evidence or a fresh decision on merits. Rectification jurisdiction is confined to mistakes apparent from the record, and equity cannot override the clear incidence of tax under the statute and notification.

Conclusion: The Assessing Authority was competent to rectify the mistake and levy tax at 4%.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the rectification order passed by the Assessing Authority.

Analysis: The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the selling dealer should not suffer for the purchasing dealer's lapse in furnishing the form. That approach could not prevail because the admitted tax liability under the notification was 4%, and the case concerned a patent mistake apparent on the record. The Tribunal's interference was therefore contrary to the limited scope of rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the rectification order.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded, the questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue, and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A patent mistake in assessment that is apparent from the record may be corrected under rectification powers, and in tax matters equity cannot be used to defeat the clear mandate of the taxing statute and notification.

---