https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164384 A concessional compounding rate fixed in a permission order could be rectified because it was based on a Finance Bill proposal and an administrative circular that did not match the governing statute. The reduced rate was not supported by the statutory rate in force, either before or after the Finance Act, 2009, so the order contained a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The circular was only an implementation instruction for a bill proposal and could not override the Act or create an enforceable entitlement to the concessional rate. Rectification under section 66(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was therefore valid. en-us Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164384 A concessional compounding rate fixed in a permission order could be rectified because it was based on a Finance Bill proposal and an administrative circular that did not match the governing statute. The reduced rate was not supported by the statutory rate in force, either before or after the Finance Act, 2009, so the order contained a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The circular was only an implementation instruction for a bill proposal and could not override the Act or create an enforceable entitlement to the concessional rate. Rectification under section 66(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was therefore valid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164384