2024 (11) TMI 1336 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

High Court Restores Original VAT Order, Cites Tribunal's Judicial Overreach and Condones Delay in Appeal Filing.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond the parties' control, influenced by a retrospective amendment. The VAT ... Rectification application to recall earlier order - error apparent in the original order or not - HELD THAT:- Mistake of law is an interpretation of law which a particular Court may hold. However, merely because a different interpretation can be taken of the provisions of law, rectification application cannot be allowed to be entertained. There has been a gross abuse of the process of the Court in passing the order dated 24.12.2007, and the same therefore, cannot be allowed to be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. The VAT appeal is allowed. Issues:1. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.2. Acceptance of rectification application by VAT Tribunal leading to recall of earlier order.3. Chairman of Punjab VAT Tribunal's refusal to rectify the order.4. Review of orders passed by the VAT Tribunal.5. Abuse of process of the Court in passing orders.6. Interpretation of law and rectification applications.7. Rejection of rectification application by the Chairman of VAT Tribunal.8. Restoration of original order dated 13.09.2007.Detailed Analysis:1. The High Court considered the delay in filing the appeal and decided to condone the delay due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties. This decision was influenced by the retrospective amendment made in Section 68 of the Act from 01.04.2005.2. The Division Bench of the VAT Tribunal accepted a rectification application from the appellant/company, which led to the recall of the earlier order and a re-examination of the case. The Tribunal allowed the appeals on the basis of a mistake of law, as pointed out by the State's counsel.3. The State moved a rectification application stating that there was no error in the original order and requested the recall of the subsequent order. The Chairman of the Punjab VAT Tribunal declined to rectify the order, citing that rectification could only be made for a mistake apparent from the record.4. The matter had been remanded from the Supreme Court, and the High Court found that the appeal should be allowed against the orders dated 24.12.2007 and 27.10.2008.5. The Court highlighted that rectification means correcting or making something right, and it is distinct from a review. The power of review had not been granted to the VAT Tribunal, and rectification should only address factual errors in the order.6. The High Court criticized the Tribunal for abusing the judicial process by re-examining its earlier order under the pretext of a mistake of law. Merely having a different interpretation of the law does not justify entertaining a rectification application.7. The Court concluded that there was a gross abuse of the judicial process in passing the order dated 24.12.2007 and set it aside accordingly.8. The Chairman's rejection of the State's rectification application was deemed unjustified, especially considering that a previous rectification application had been allowed without a mistake apparent from the record. The Court set aside the Chairman's order dated 27.10.2008 and restored the original order dated 13.09.2007.9. The High Court expressed disapproval of the Chairman's approach and set aside the order dated 27.10.2008, ultimately allowing the VAT appeal in favor of the appellant.