https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260090 Rectification jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act extends to an admitted, patent factual error apparent from the record, but not to a disguised review of a debatable issue. The Tribunal had assumed the assessments were under Section 33(3) when they were in fact under Section 33(2), and that mistake went to the root of the earlier order. The court held that recalling the order for fresh consideration on the correct factual basis was permissible, because the correction was necessary to remove the obvious error rather than to reassess the merits. The challenge to the rectification order therefore failed. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jun 2015 16:50:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260090 Rectification jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act extends to an admitted, patent factual error apparent from the record, but not to a disguised review of a debatable issue. The Tribunal had assumed the assessments were under Section 33(3) when they were in fact under Section 33(2), and that mistake went to the root of the earlier order. The court held that recalling the order for fresh consideration on the correct factual basis was permissible, because the correction was necessary to remove the obvious error rather than to reassess the merits. The challenge to the rectification order therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260090