https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148399 A later binding Supreme Court ruling showed the turnover was not taxable, and the assessing order was therefore treated as a mistake apparent on the face of the record because no further factual inquiry was needed; rectification under rule 38 was accordingly available within the prescribed time. Delay under Article 226 was not automatically excused, and relief depended on timely pursuit of the rectification remedy. Petitions filed within the five-year period could be entertained even without a prior rectification application on the facts stated, but petitions brought after that period were dismissed or rejected, leaving no writ relief where limitation had expired. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:57:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148399 A later binding Supreme Court ruling showed the turnover was not taxable, and the assessing order was therefore treated as a mistake apparent on the face of the record because no further factual inquiry was needed; rectification under rule 38 was accordingly available within the prescribed time. Delay under Article 226 was not automatically excused, and relief depended on timely pursuit of the rectification remedy. Petitions filed within the five-year period could be entertained even without a prior rectification application on the facts stated, but petitions brought after that period were dismissed or rejected, leaving no writ relief where limitation had expired. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 06 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148399