2023 (1) TMI 844 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification Rejected: Only Patent Errors Correctable, Final Decisions and Debatable Law Points Remain Intact.

The Tribunal's decision to reject the rectification application under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was upheld. The Court concluded that ... Maintainability of appeal for rectification before the Trade Tax Tribunal - error apparent on the face of record or not - order in assessment proceedings have been upheld in a revision before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act - Tribunal is competent to rectify the order of assessment by exercising powers under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the basis of declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at a later stage or not - maintainability of application under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for rectification of its own order passed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Whether in the garb of rectification under Section 22, the judgment and order of the Tribunal, having been confirmed by the High Court, can be set aside on merit? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the assessment order upheld by the Tribunal on 31.8.2004 was confirmed by this Court on 09.11.2004 in the revisions filed by the assessee. As no challenge was made to the order passed by this Court, it attained finality. Reopening of the case by the assessee in garb of Section 22 of Act of 1948 cannot be permitted as there is no error apparent on the record. Language employed in Section 22 is clear and authorises the officers of authority, Tribunal or High Court to rectify the mistake on its own motion or on application of the dealer within the period prescribed therein - In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh [1963 (10) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. Similarly, in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Ors. vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [1959 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court held that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to affect rectification must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The rectification under Section 22 of the Act of 1948 was maintainable. The language used in Section 22 is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity so as to give a different meaning, which only provides that in case of error apparent on the record an order for rectification of such mistake can be passed. This Court finds that no interference is required in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.09.2009 - revision dismissed. Issues:- Whether an appeal for rectification under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is maintainable before the Trade Tax Tribunal after the order in assessment proceedings has been upheld in a revision before the High CourtRs.- Whether the Tribunal can rectify the order of assessment based on a subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme CourtRs.- Whether the High Court can entertain an application under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for rectification of its own order passed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948Rs.Analysis:Issue 1:The assessee, a registered dealer under the Act of 1948, was involved in the purchase and sale of goods. Disputes arose regarding the treatment of purchases from unregistered dealers as goods manufactured by the assessee. Appeals were made, which were dismissed, leading to revisions before the High Court. The High Court upheld the assessment order, which became final. The question arises whether a rectification under Section 22 is maintainable after the High Court's confirmation. The Court held that reopening the case under Section 22 is impermissible as there is no error apparent on record post the High Court's final decision.Issue 2:The assessee moved a rectification application under Section 22 based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court clarified that rectification is for patent errors only, not for debatable points of law. The language of Section 22 is clear, allowing rectification for mistakes apparent on record. The Court emphasized that rectification is not a means to reverse an order but correct a clear mistake. The decision in Jhunjhunwala & others does not automatically warrant rectification if the error is not apparent on the record.Issue 3:The Court referred to various legal precedents emphasizing that rectification is not for revisiting debatable points of law or fact. The Apex Court's stance in Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. case was cited to highlight that rectification is not for correcting decisions on debatable points. The Court concluded that the rectification sought by the assessee was not based on an error apparent on record but on a debatable point of law, which cannot be rectified under Section 22. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to reject the rectification application was upheld.In summary, the Court dismissed all the revisions, emphasizing that rectification under Section 22 is limited to correcting patent errors and not for revisiting final decisions or debatable points of law. The judgment favored the Revenue and upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject the rectification application.