2020 (12) TMI 530 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses challenges to assessing authority's jurisdiction under CST Act & error correction under A.P. VAT Rules

M/s. Satya Exports Unit-II Plot No. 20 and 21, Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer No. II, The State of Andhra Pradesh, The Union of India

The court dismissed all writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing authority under the CST Act, 1956, and seeking correction of errors ... Attachment of petitioner Bank Account - clerical and arithmetical mistake or not - whether the application/representation made by the petitioner, to the effect that the demand made by the assessing authority is not enforceable as the unit of the petitioner is in economic zone and the alleged illegality in the order falls within the ambit of words “clerical and arithmetical mistake” as in Rule 60 of A.P. VAT Rules? HELD THAT:- From Rule 60 of A.P. VAT Rules, it is clear that an application seeking correction of errors can be made within four years from the date of the order, provided there is a clerical or arithmetical error in the order. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent that the petitioner has come to the court at a belated stage may not be correct. But, the issue is whether there was a clerical or arithmetical error in the order dated 20.3.2018. The material placed before the court would show that the petitioner herein never challenged the assessment order wherein the petitioner was demanded to pay a sum of ₹ 2,34,369/- as CST for the assessment year 2013-2014. The said order has become final. For reasons best known, two years later i.e., in the month of October, 2020, the petitioner made a request for the relief referred to earlier. Definitely, the reasons for alteration of the relief or modification of the relief as urged in the representation cannot be called as a clerical or arithmetical error. As seen from his representation, the plea of the petitioner is that the demand made is not executable against the petitioner. If that is so, the remedy for the petitioner would be to challenge the order passed by the authority in the year 2018. But, without doing so, allowed the order to attain finality and thereafter, has come forward with a request in the form of a representation indirectly seeking reopening of the assessment. If the said representation is allowed to be adjudicated, the same would amount to reviewing of the assessment by the very same authority, who has passed the assessment order or reopening of the assessment. In the absence of any provision for reviewing the order, we hold that there is no error, falling within the parameters of Rule 60 of A.P. VAT Rules, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority in passing proceedings under CST Act, 1956.2. Application for correction of errors in the assessment order under A.P. VAT Rules.3. Interpretation of Rule 60 of A.P. VAT Rules regarding rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes.4. Whether the representation made by the petitioner constitutes a clerical or arithmetical error.5. Review of assessment order without statutory provision for review.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner challenged the action of the assessing authority in passing proceedings for the tax period under the CST Act, 1956, claiming it to be arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to set aside the proceedings based on the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.Issue 2:The petitioner filed an application seeking correction of errors in the assessment order under Rule 60 of A.P. VAT Rules, contending that the demand made was not enforceable as the unit was situated in a Special Economic Zone. The assessing authority had earlier passed an order of assessment, which had become final as no appeal was filed against it.Issue 3:The court examined Rule 60 of A.P. VAT Rules, which allows rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes within four years from the date of the order. The respondent's objection regarding the belated application was considered, and the court focused on whether there was a clerical or arithmetical error in the assessment order.Issue 4:The representation made by the petitioner two years after the assessment order was analyzed. The court found that the plea in the representation did not constitute a clerical or arithmetical error as it sought relief based on the unit's location in a Special Economic Zone. The court emphasized that challenging the order or seeking relief should have been done earlier instead of indirectly requesting a reopening of the assessment.Issue 5:The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that review is permissible only when provided for by statute. Since there was no provision for review in this case, the court held that the representation seeking to alter the relief amounted to reviewing the assessment without statutory backing. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions.In conclusion, the court dismissed all the writ petitions, emphasizing that the representation made by the petitioner did not constitute a clerical or arithmetical error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted the importance of challenging orders in a timely manner and the limitations on reviewing assessments without statutory provisions.