TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion which is having limited scope. (2)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Rajasthan Tax Board has acted illegally and perversely in deleting the penalty u/s. 78(5) when there was violation of provisions of Sec. 78(2) (a) and Rule 53 and the declaration form ST-18A was not submitted at the time of checking and even with the reply despite opportunity granted by the assessing authority." 2. Counsel for the petitioner-revenue submits that the Tax Board vide its order dt.27/11/2007 decided the issue in favour of the revenue, after considering the facts, invoices, bills and upheld the imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, 'Act')....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt-assessee despite of service. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the revenue and perused the impugned order so also the order dated. 27/11/2007. 5. In my view, the present order of the Tax Board deserves to be quashed & set aside for the simple reason that on perusal of the order, it is noticed that the Tax Board has reviewed its own order dt. 27/11/2007 in the garb of the rectification order. In my view, the scope of Sec. 33 under RVAT Act, 2003 or Section 37 of the RST Act, 1994 is limited and for ready reference, Section 33 of the Act is reproduced as under:- "Section 33 - Rectification of a mistake (1) With a view to rectifying....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be corrected/rectified by the Tax Board. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Makkad Plastic Agencies (supra), observed as under:- "Both the aforesaid two decisions which were rendered while considering taxation laws are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is also now an established proposition of law that review is a creature of the statute and such an order of review could be passed only when an express power of review is provided in the statute. In the absence of any statutory provision for review, exercise of power of review under the garb of clarification/modification/corr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; "A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions." 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde Vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale reported in (1960) 1 SCR 890 ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. The State of Orissa and Another reported in (1966) 17 STC 360 held under:- &nb....