Deemed rectification and delayed refund interest arise automatically when statutory deadlines expire without rejection.

Under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, a rectification application not rejected within sixty days triggered the statutory deeming fiction, so the order was treated as amended and any later contrary rectification or consequential proceedings lacked jurisdiction. The relevant legal effect was that the deemed amendment operated automatically once the department failed to act within time. On refund, interest became payable because the right to refund arose from the deemed rectification and the delay had to be measured from receipt of the application, not from the later date on which the judgment copy was obtained. The commentary thus links deemed rectification with invalidity of later proceedings and statutory interest on delayed refund.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rectification application filed by the assessee stood deemed to have been allowed on expiry of sixty days under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, and whether the later rectification and consequential proceedings were without jurisdiction; (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to interest on the delayed refund under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether the rectification application filed by the assessee stood deemed to have been allowed on expiry of sixty days under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, and whether the later rectification and consequential proceedings were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The rectification application was filed along with the judgment of the Division Bench and was received by the department. It was not rejected within sixty days. The second proviso to Section 25-A(1) creates a legal fiction that, on such default, the order shall be deemed to have been amended rectifying the mistake. Once that deemed rectification came into force, a later rectification order passed in derogation of that fiction could not stand. The subsequent revisional, assessment, refund and appellate proceedings flowed from an order that was itself without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The deemed rectification operated in law, and the later rectification order as well as the consequential proceedings were invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to interest on the delayed refund under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The right to refund had already accrued once the deemed rectification took effect, and the refund was granted only after the statutory period. The relevant period for computing delay had to be reckoned from the date of receipt of the rectification application, not from the later date on which the departmental authorities obtained the judgment copy. Since the refund was not made within the period contemplated by Section 13-A, interest became payable for the delayed period.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to interest at 6% per annum for the period of delay found on the facts.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned tribunal order was set aside, and the assessee's entitlement to statutory interest on the delayed refund was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rectification application is not rejected within the statutory period, the deeming provision operates automatically, and any later order contrary to that deemed amendment is without jurisdiction; a statutory right to interest on delayed refund then accrues according to the period of delay computed from the date the application was received.

---