TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rohit, Senior Advocate along with Rajeev Purohit DR. VINEET KOTHARI J.-Heard learned counsels. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated July 8, 2008 of the Tax Board by which the Tax Board for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 held that original assessment order passed on February 27, 1988 could not be reopened under section 30(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 after expiry o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding availability of concessional rate under section 5CC of the RST Act, 1994 to the respondent-assessee or not was a debatable issue and same did not amount to mistake apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, same could not be rectified under section 17 of the Act. The relevant portion of the decision of coordinate bench of this court dated February 11, 2000 is reproduced hereunder for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rror appears from the record of the case which could justify having recourse to rectification of the order dated August 21, 1991 passed in Appeal No. 22 of 1991. In this view of the matter, I find no force in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (R. BALIA, J.)" 5. The learned counsel for the Revenue sought to urge that limitation of five years under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order was passed on February 27, 1988 for these two assessment years, assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. He, therefore, submitted that the Tax Board was justified in allowing the assessee's appeals and setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of revision petitions filed by the Revenue. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, this ....