TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the order of the Tribunal for the assessment of tax. 2. The petitioner-assessee has raised several questions of law. In our view, only substantial law which arises for consideration is: "Whether the re-assessment was permissible under the head of "Rectification of the order in purported exercise of the power under Section 69 of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the basis of a clarification issued by the Commissioner which itself is after the order of re-assessment dated 28.6.2010." 3. In order to appreciate the question, some reference of the facts may be required: The assessee who is dealing in fabrication of iron and steel gates and windows etc. as per Entry Sl.No.4 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de to find out as to whether the raw material of the fabrication work is MS or other iron and steel and further directed for collection of tax as per the observations made. Under the circumstances, the present petitions before this Court. 4. We have heard Mr.Keshavamurthy T.N., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.K.Vedamurthy, AGA appearing for the respondent. 5. Section 69 of the KVAT Act which would be relevant deserves to be reproduced and the same reads as under: "69. Rectification of mistakes: (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, the prescribed authority, appellate authority or revising authority, may, at any time within five years from the date of an order pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed earlier nor any fact in law or material which came into existence after the order could be considered. It is undisputed position that in the present case, the basis of the rectification order is, the clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial taxes dated 21.2.2012. The re-assessment order was already passed in case of the petitioners on 28.6.2010. Therefore, the basis for exercise of the power for rectification under Section 69 which is the clarification of the Commissioner dated 21.2.2012 did not exist at all when the re-assessment order was passed on 28.6.2010. If any material which has come into existence after the order of re-assessment, apart from the aspects that the same was not the part of the record, even otherwise also c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orate arguments, in regard to which there could reasonably be no two opinions is a "mistake apparent from the record". If it relates to a fact, it should be possible to say "this is obviously a mistake". A decision on a debatable point of law will not however be a mistake apparent from the record. A point on which there is no decision of the Supreme Court or of the concerned High Court, and in regard to which two or more views are possible, is a debatable point of law. A point of law on which there is divergent views of other High Courts, is a debatable point of law. Hence there cannot be a rectification of an order, merely on the ground that a contrary decision was rendered on the point involved by a High Court other than the High Court of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh reported at 2008(64) KAR LJ.195 (SC), the Apex Court while considering the scope and ambit of jurisdiction for rectification observed at para.11 which reads as under: " "Mistake" is an ordinary word but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical error which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate is discerned. The word "mistake" is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract ....