2017 (8) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....59, (TNGST Act) should be considered by the first respondent or that matter, the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority. 3. Before I proceed to go into the relevant facts of this case, it is necessary to invoke the scope and power exercisable under Section 55 of the Act. The said provision reads as follows:- "Section 55 Power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. (1) An assessing authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) may, at any time within [five years] from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record;  Provided that no such rectification which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or any penalty shall be made unl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....can be established only by a long drawn process of reasoning or is a debatable point of law. Therefore, what can be rectified is such error, which is so apparent on the very face of the record and it is a wonder, how it had crept in and it could have been avoided even the first place. Errors which are not rectifiable are more, which are not obvious, not glaring, not self evident, but requires, detailed investigation into the facts and arguments in law. Therefore, if the correction of the mistake on any one of the above grounds is not permissible, then the only remedy available for the aggrieved person is to prefer an appeal or a revision under the provisions of the Act. 5. Bearing this legal principle in mind, if the case on hand is examin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Additional Sales Tax Act. It was stated that this position was not considered by the first respondent, while passing the modified order and therefore, requested for revising the order by exercising power under Section 55 of the Act. 8. Thus, the first respondent was required to consider only whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record and the error pointed out by the petitioner was not an error apparent on the face of the record. Unfortunately, the first respondent proceeded to re-examine the entire matter and opined that the earlier order, dated 02.05.2007, was not tenable, but thought fit to make an observation that they at this stage, cannot go into the merits of the case. 9. A reading of the impugned order wou....