Recall application limitation cannot be confused with fresh assessment deadline under VAT law; debatable error was not rectifiable.

A validly filed recall application under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is not cut down by the limitation applicable to passing a fresh assessment under Section 29(6). The court held that Section 32 prescribes the time for filing recall, not a separate deadline for deciding it, and that the subsequent proceedings were therefore not barred merely because they were completed after the period for a fresh assessment had expired. It also held that an alleged limitation issue based on mixing the two provisions was not a mistake apparent from the record, because such a debatable question cannot justify rectification or revival of the earlier ex parte assessment order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order passed under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, was barred by limitation merely because it was made after the expiry of the period available for passing a fresh assessment order under Section 29(6) of the Act; (ii) Whether the assessing authority could treat the order dated 22.02.2014 as suffering from a mistake apparent from the face of the record and thereby annul the subsequent proceedings and revive the earlier ex parte assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether the order passed under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, was barred by limitation merely because it was made after the expiry of the period available for passing a fresh assessment order under Section 29(6) of the Act.

Analysis: The limitation for passing a fresh assessment order under Section 29(6) arises only after an application under Section 32 is allowed and a fresh round of assessment is to be undertaken. Section 32 itself prescribes only the period for filing the recall application and does not impose a separate time limit for deciding such application. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with waiver, lack of jurisdiction, and limitation in different statutory settings, and held that the writ court's earlier direction to proceed afresh did not create an artificial bar to the statutory power exercised under Section 31. The remedial scheme of the Act, including the availability of appeal under Section 55, showed that the subsequent proceedings were not vitiated merely on the ground of time.

Conclusion: The order under Section 31 was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessing authority could treat the order dated 22.02.2014 as suffering from a mistake apparent from the face of the record and thereby annul the subsequent proceedings and revive the earlier ex parte assessment order.

Analysis: A mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and self-evident, not something requiring elaborate argument or a debatable interpretation. The Court held that the assessing authority's view that the recall order was time-barred was unsustainable because the computation adopted by the authority incorrectly mixed up the limitation for filing a recall application under Section 32 with the limitation for making a fresh assessment under Section 29(6). Since the recall application had been filed within time, it had to be decided on merits, and the order dated 22.02.2014 did not disclose any apparent error warranting rectification.

Conclusion: The order dated 22.02.2014 did not suffer from any mistake apparent from the face of the record.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rectification order could not stand in law, and the writ petition was allowed by quashing the order dated 21.06.2017.

Ratio Decidendi: The period for deciding a validly filed recall application under Section 32 is not curtailed by the limitation applicable to making a fresh assessment under Section 29(6), and a debatable issue of limitation cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record.

---