TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (6) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver are not liable to be taxed in view of a decision of this court reported in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Thirumagal Mills Limited[1967] 20 S.T.C. 287. The Tribunal further proceeded on the basis that this decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noticed that, as far as the canteen sales are concerned, it was an amenity provided by the company for its workers and staff as enjoined under section 46 of the Factories Act. In the view that it took on the basis of the decision of this court which was assumed by it to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal did not go into the contentions of the assessee, but merely excluded the said items from the taxable turnover. On 19th June, 1974, the Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sales, the Tribunal observed: "However the turnover of canteen sales would be exempt from assessment only if the assessee had subsidised 25 per cent of the total expenses incurred in running the canteen as per G.O.P. No. 2238, Revenue, dated 1st September, 1964. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court the deletion of the assessment on the second turnover by the Tribunal is an error apparent on the face of the records. In their counter the respondents seek to claim exemption from assessment on the second turnover on the basis of the above Government Order. This contention has not been raised by the respondents at any stage of the proceedings. This contention raised for the first time before the Tribunal cannot be given any con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted out already, there were two items of turnover which were the subject-matter of consideration by the Tribunal. One was regarding the canteen sales and the other was regarding the sale of scrap. As regards the sale of scrap the amount involved in the appeal before the Tribunal was Rs. 6,265.25. The Tribunal had confirmed the assessment to the extent of Rs. 2,628. Therefore, it is only the balance of Rs. 3,637.25 that was the subject of the rectification petition filed by the State. With reference to the scrap sales, it cannot be disputed that there was an error in the order of the Tribunal in so far as the said sales had been deleted from the taxable turnover on a misapprehension that the Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal, in support of its decision, has referred to a decision of this court in Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal[1972] 29 S.T.C. 378. That was a decision of a learned single judge of this court. In that case, an assessee had appealed to the Tribunal and the appeal has been disposed of by an order dated 30th January, 1965. Subsequently, in Khosla & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 (S.C.). , the Supreme Court rendered a decision on 18th January, 1966. On the basis of this decision, the assessee filed an application in 1967 stating that a turnover of Rs. 8,33,024.21 had to be excluded from the taxable turnover, since, according to the decision in the Khosla's case(4), they sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed out by the assessee cannot be said to be a manifest error. The contention based on this decision appears to proceed on the wrong understanding of the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee does not say that the error committed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the canteen sales without reference to the G.O. was a manifest error liable to be rectified under section 55 of the Act. He submitted that even though under section 55 there was jurisdiction to reopen an order already passed and to find out whether there was any rectifiable error, still, if the rectification proceedings are taken up, it was necessary for the particular authority to go into the question as to whether in the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of another error. There is no warrant in the Act authorising introduction of an error in the course of proceedings for rectification of another error. The fetters on the jurisdiction to rectify so as to confine the jurisdiction only to patent errors which did not involve any doubt or dispute will not apply to the consequential issues that flow from the application for rectification being accepted. The same result follows even in a case of suo motu rectification. The acceptance of the contrary view would be to allow one party to get away with an inequitable or unjust or even an illegal order. It would be an abdication of jurisdiction by the rectifying authority if it has to leave the matter without considering the unjust consequences flo....