2021 (7) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2009-10 and issued a NIL demand assessment order AAO 20043 dt.23-03-2013. 3. The 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dt.29-06-2016 proposing to revise the assessment order on the basis of nonavailability of documents and records to claim the benefit of concessional tax on Inter-State sale of goods, and with regard to sales during the course of transit. 4. Petitioner filed written submissions before the 2nd respondent on 30-08-2016. 5. Thereafter the 2nd respondent rejected the contentions of the petitioner and passed D.C. order No.125 dt.28-02-2017 confirming the levy proposed under the show cause notice dt.29-06-2016.   6. Petitioner questioned the same in W.P.No.11433 of 2017 before this Court, but withdrew the same on 16-08....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment. 10. The 2nd respondent did not accept the submissions of the petitioner and passed DC order No.36 dt.22-01-2021 refusing to exercise power under Rule 60 of the Telangana VAT Rules. 11. In the said order, he quoted Rule 60, which permitted any authority prescribed, appellate or revising authority to rectify clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record within four years from the date of any order passed by him; and stated that only arithmetical or clerical mistakes apparent from the record are amenable to rectification under Rule 60 of the said Rules, and the grounds raised by the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of Rule 60. He also pointed out that power of rectification under Section 32 of the Act is diff....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner chose to file W.P.No.11433 of 2017 and on 16-08-2018 withdrew the same. 17. We do not accept the plea of the petitioner that the said Writ Petition was withdrawn by the learned counsel for petitioner without informing the petitioner, because at no point of time any review of the order dt.16-08-2018 in W.P.No.11433 of 2017 was sought taking such a plea and seeking for restoration of the Writ Petition. Admittedly, the said withdrawal was sought by the petitioner in W.P.No.11433 of 2017 with liberty to file an application under Rule 60 of the Telangana VAT Rules, 2005 before the 2nd respondent herein and said liberty was granted. 18. Thereafter petitioner filed application under Rule 60 rai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hus, they furnished the following statements to buttress their contentions. 1. Details of differential turnover of Rs. 20,03,208-00. 2. Details of transit sales. 3. Details of 'C' forms covering both interstate sales and Transit sales. (Interstate sale Rs. 9,33,36,-10-00 Sales-in transit Rs. 13,20,86,525-00. 20. The 2nd respondent then passed DC Order No.36 dt.22-01-2021 accepting the first contention regarding issue of adoption of turnover of Rs. 20,20,208/- instead of Rs. 20,03,208/-, but rejected the other three contentions raised by petitioner on the ground that they do not fall within the purview of clerical and arithmetical errors which can only be corrected under Rule 60. 21. Rule 60 of the Telangana VAT Rules states: "An....