https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439766 Forfeiture under Section 47(3) of the Karnataka VAT Act was unavailable because the amount was deducted as TDS under a mistaken understanding, deposited, and later repaid to the contractor; the statutory conditions for treating it as tax collected and for applying forfeiture were not satisfied. Rectification under Section 69(1) was also invalid because it can be used only to correct a mistake apparent from the record, not a debatable issue, and the rectification order failed to show any such patent error while the appellate authority did not cure that jurisdictional defect. The petitioner was therefore entitled to refund of the amount already determined in its favour, with interest only for delay beyond the permitted payment period. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jul 2023 08:36:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439766 Forfeiture under Section 47(3) of the Karnataka VAT Act was unavailable because the amount was deducted as TDS under a mistaken understanding, deposited, and later repaid to the contractor; the statutory conditions for treating it as tax collected and for applying forfeiture were not satisfied. Rectification under Section 69(1) was also invalid because it can be used only to correct a mistake apparent from the record, not a debatable issue, and the rectification order failed to show any such patent error while the appellate authority did not cure that jurisdictional defect. The petitioner was therefore entitled to refund of the amount already determined in its favour, with interest only for delay beyond the permitted payment period. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439766