1999 (7) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Sales Tax Act, 1948 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Its assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 was completed by the Excise and Taxation Officercum-Assessing Authority, Sangrur vide order dated December 5, 1985 in which a demand of Rs. 12,61,124 was created by disallowing some consignment transactions. It filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated May 8, 1990. Not satisfied, the dealer filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), Punjab which was also dismissed vide order dated March 31, 1992. The dealer filed an application for rectification under section 21-A of the Act on Dec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order on various grounds. It has been firstly contended that the impugned order is barred by time. For this purpose it was pointed out that a plain reading of subsection (1) of section 21-A of the Act shows that the mistake, if any, in an order could be rectified within 2 years from the date of such order. In this case vide impugned order dated May 10, 1995 the Tribunal had rectified its order dated March 31, 1992 which it was not competent to do. 4.. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Bindal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 contended that the impugned order was not time barred as it merely rectified earlier order of the Tribunal passed under section 21-A of the Act dated December 27, 1993. 5.. The contention raised on behalf of the dealer....