TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner s application for rectification of the order of assessment passed by the respondent for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. 3. The short issue, which falls for consideration is whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the application for rectification on the ground that there is no mistake, which is apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 4. Before I examine the factual position, it would be relevant to know the legal position as to what would be an error, which is apparent on the face of the record. 5. In Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-I reported in (1977) 110 ITR 822 (Mad), the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be mistake apparent from the record under Section 254(2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal. 42. In our judgment, it is also well-settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a 'new rule' but to maintain and expound the 'old one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he record. 9. Bearing the above legal principle in mind, if we examine the facts of the case, wherein the petitioner has contended that they have sold products to various parties and one such sale being mineral turpentine oil, which was sold against Form XVII declaration, it entitled the petitioner to claim concessional rate of tax. 10. By referring to the decision of the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Madras Petro Chem Ltd., reported in (1993) 89 STC 438 (Mad), it was stated that if there is any mistake in the Form XVII declaration, the selling dealer is not made liable for the wrong declaration by the purchasing dealer. Therefore, the petitioner went before the assessing officer to state ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessing officer has given certain reasons in the assessment order to state that as to how the petitioner is not entitled for sale against Form XVII declaration and it is not a case where defective Form XVII declaration has been filed. Therefore, the presumption, which was drawn against the petitioner should be discharged by the petitioner by producing necessary documents and records before the concerned authority and not before this Court. 15. Thus, for the above reasons, I find that there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had in fact filed an appeal before the appellate authority along with the application for waiver of pre-deposit, ....