1971 (8) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on in Khosla & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.). was rendered on 18th January, 1966. He filed an application in 1967 stating that a turnover of Rs. 8,33,024.21 has to be excluded from the taxable turnover since according to the decision in the Khosla's case[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.)., they should be deemed to be sales which occasioned the import. It is conceded that this question was never mooted or argued before the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the petitioner did not even make it a ground for appeal as against the order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal interpreting the law as it existed and in the absence of any representation that the turnover as above is excludable as non-taxa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpowered to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. It is, therefore, necessary that the records should show that the Appellate Tribunal applied its mind over a broad aspect which was argued before it and decided the case one way or the other. If in the course of such a decision, it commits an error and that error continues to remain on record, it would be a pursuable error or an apparent error on record. In those circumstances, the person aggrieved is entitled to approach the appropriate authority including the Appellate Tribunal to rectify such an error which is so patent on the record. In a given case where the assessee fails to advert to a particular circumstance or detail and if such an invitation for a decision on the fa....