https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154956 Rectification under section 17(3) required a mistake apparent on the face of the record; where earlier assessment orders had consciously declined to levy penalty and interest, the assessing authority could not use notices to reopen that discretionary decision without identifying a specific apparent error. The notices proposing penalty under section 7AA and interest under section 11B were therefore without jurisdiction. Interest under the relevant version of section 11B was not automatic and depended on the statutory conditions then in force, so it could not be imposed through rectification in the absence of a demonstrable mistake. The writ petition succeeded and the impugned notices were quashed. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:58:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154956 Rectification under section 17(3) required a mistake apparent on the face of the record; where earlier assessment orders had consciously declined to levy penalty and interest, the assessing authority could not use notices to reopen that discretionary decision without identifying a specific apparent error. The notices proposing penalty under section 7AA and interest under section 11B were therefore without jurisdiction. Interest under the relevant version of section 11B was not automatic and depended on the statutory conditions then in force, so it could not be imposed through rectification in the absence of a demonstrable mistake. The writ petition succeeded and the impugned notices were quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154956