TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revision No. 74 of 2010, whereby the High Court dismissed the said revision petition preferred by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated January 22, 2009 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer, wherein the Taxation Board interfered and modified its earlier order dated May 13, 2008. The assessment of the assessee-respondent for the assessment year 2001-02 was completed by the assessing officer under section 29(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994") holding that the tax on "thermo ware" and "vacuum ware", which were the articles sold by the assessee-respondent during the relevant assessment year, should be levied sales tax at 10 per cent instead of eight per cent, treating them as separate arti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as restored. The assessee-respondent thereafter filed a rectification/amendment application purportedly under section 37 of the Act of 1994, which was decided by the Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer by passing an order dated January 22, 2009. By the aforesaid order the Taxation Board modified its earlier order to the extent of holding that as the assessee-respondent had declared all his sales in the books of accounts, in that situation, in order to levy penalty, the Department has to also prove additionally, that there was a mala fide intention on the part of the assessee-respondent for tax evasion, which is not revealed in the present case. It was further held that as the mala fide intention of the assessee-respondent for tax evasion has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the Taxation Board in excess of its jurisdiction. The said order dated January 22, 2009 was passed on the basis of an amendment application filed by the assessee- respondent under section 37 of the Act of 1994. In the said order dated January 22, 2009, the Taxation Board proceeded on the ground that the said application was in the nature of amendment application praying for amendment of its judgment and order dated May 13, 2008. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Taxation Board committed a jurisdictional error in amending and reviewing its earlier order dated May 13, 2008 while exercising the power of rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It may be stated herein that despite se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the conclusion arrived at by the assessing officer is well-considered and reasonable. It was also held that, although, in the appellate judgment, given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), reference was made to the use of "plastic granules" and "powder" as raw material for manufacturing "thermo ware" for treating "thermo ware" as covered under the category of plastic goods/products, but neither any evidence nor any reasonable and justifiable ground was given in the said order for doing the same. After recording the aforesaid findings, the Taxation Board set aside the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order of the tax assessing officer, who had by his order, held that the assessee-respondent is liable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. It implies an error, mistake or defect which after rectification is made right. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal v. Ralson Industries Ltd.[2007] 288 ITR 322 (SC). reported in [2007] 2 SCC 326 a similar situation arose for the interpretation of this court regarding the scope and ambit of section 154 of the Income-tax Act vesting the power of rectification as against the power vested under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, which is a power of revision. While examining the scope of the power of rectification under section 154 as against the power of revision vested under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, it was held by this court as follows at para 8: "8. The scope and ambit of a proceeding for rectification of an order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority, the rectified order shall be given effect to. We may also at this stage appropriately refer to yet another decision of this court in Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. [2000] 118 STC 422 (SC). reported in [2000] 3 SCC 676, in which the power and scope of rectification was considered and pitted against the scope of review. The aforesaid decision was in the context of section 39(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1995 which provides the power of review. Section 22 of the said Act provides for rectification of mistake. In the said decision, it was held that when two specific and independent powers have been conferred Supon the authorities, both powers can be exercised alternatively, but, it cannot....