TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2,11,45,852, representing the first sale of sports goods, and accordingly paid tax of Rs. 21,61,357. The said turnover, as assessed to tax, comprised of Rs. 31,53,116 for the period from April 1, 2004 to May 26, 2004 and was subjected to tax at eight per cent. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), (the first respondent herein), issued show-cause notice dated June 10, 2008 proposing to revise the assessment, and to levy tax on the turnover of Rs. 31,53,116, for the first part of the assessment year, at 12 per cent instead of eight per cent levied by the assessing authority. The petitioners filed their objections thereto on June 30, 2008. The first respondent, however, confirmed the revision by his order dated July 7, 2008. The petitioner would submit that the order passed by the revisional authority did not truthfully reflect adoption of the formula as per the Act; the "turnover", as defined in section 2(s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act read with rule 6(1)(l) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, required the tax component to be removed from the taxable turnover; while the assessing authority had calculated the tax component applying the correct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y him was incidental to the power, conferred under section 20(2) of the Act, to revise orders; the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in holding that the endorsement of the revisional authority, under rule 50, was an independent order which was not appealable under section 21 of the Act; having held that the appeal itself was not maintainable the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in deciding the appeal on the merits, and in holding that the order of the revisional authority, and the computation of tax by him, was not an arithmetical mistake which could be rectified under rule 50 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. The learned counsel would submit that, in so far as it related to the decision on the merits, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was functus officio. In his endorsement dated December 29, 2009, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) held that the application filed under rule 50 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was not maintainable as there was no arithmetical mistake, in the original order dated July 7, 2009, which could be rectified under rule 50 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules; the petitioner's request that an order be passed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larity in the procedure relating thereto, unless it appears that such defect or irregularity has in fact occasioned material hardship or failure of justice. Section 38A of the Act is not a source of power for the Deputy Commissioner (CT) to review the revisional order passed by him earlier. The said provision prohibits a revisional order being set aside merely for a defect or irregularity in procedure, except where such a defect or irregularity has occasioned material hardship or failure of justice. As the revisional authority under the Act has not been conferred the power of review, section 38A does not enable an assessee to file an application requesting him to set aside the order in revision passed by him earlier. Section 38A would come into operation only where an order passed by any officer or authority under the Act is sought to be set aside, on account of any defect or irregularity in procedure relating thereto. Section 38A is a restriction on the powers of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in interfering with the order passed by the revisional authority on the ground that there is a defect or an irregularity in the procedure followed in passing the said order. In view of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e within four years from the date of any order passed by him, to rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record. The basis of rule 50 is founded on the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" an act of a court/quasijudicial authority shall prejudice no man. The maxim is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law. An unintentional mistake of the court/Tribunal which may prejudice the cause of any party must, and alone, be rectified. No new arguments or re-arguments on the merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order. (State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh [2004] 1 SCC 328 and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho [2001] 4 SCC 181). The principle behind the rule is that whatever is intended by the authority, while passing the order, must be properly reflected therein. (Jayalakshmi Coelho [2001] 4 SCC 181). The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the quasi-judicial authority of its ministerial acts, and does not encompass the passing of an effective or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the court/Tribunal. It represents that which the court/Tribunal never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. (Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal [1981] 1 SCC 500). If there is an arithmetical or clerical error in the order, it can be corrected. The power cannot be exercised where the matter involves a rehearing on the merits, or reconsideration of questions of fact or law, or consideration of fresh material, or new arguments which were not advanced when the original order was made. Nor can the power be exercised to change the reasoning and conclusions. (J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [2007] 2 SCC 433) In order to attract rule 50, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. "Mistake" means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. "Apparent" means visible; capable of being seen; obvious; plain. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....154). Section 21(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act enables any dealer, objecting to an order passed or proceeding recorded (a) by any prescribed authority on appeal under section 19; or (b) by the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under section 14 or under section 20(2); to prefer an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Section 14 confers power on the assessing authority to assess the dealer to tax and, if such an order of assessment is passed by the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, an appeal lies to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 21(1)(b) of the Act. Section 20(2) enables the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, etc., to revise the orders passed by officers subordinate to them. Against an order of revision passed under section 20(2) of the Act, an appeal also lies to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 21(1)(b) of the Act. As the appeal, which the petitioner filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, is not against the order of revision passed under section 20(2) of the Act, but against the endorsement of t....