TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal, petitioner preferred a petition for rectification under section 66 of the Act, pointing out certain specific errors. The main grounds for seeking rectification of the order imposing penalty, related to the conclusion arrived at by the assessing officer and the allegation of turnover suppression based on four slips recovered from the principal place of business of the petitioner. 4. The contentions raised in the rectification petition was that (a) though the petitioner had sought for a forensic examination of the four slips which according to the petitioner were manipulated documents having no evidentiary value and the affidavit alleging manipulation remained unrebutted were not considered by the assessing officer: (b) the penalty will not be attracted if the transaction in question was accounted and had passed through the books of accounts, as held in the decision in U.K. Monu Timbers (M/s.) v. State of Kerala (2012 (3) KHC 111) and hence there was not a single case of non-accounting of any transaction available as per records: (c) no penalty can be imposed if the job work charges collected from the client had passed through the books of accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was in fact no discrepancy in the physical inspection of stock and the valuation was not on the basis. 9. Smt.M.M.Jasmin, the learned Government pleader on the other hand contended that the issues raised by the petitioner were not matters which could be dealt with in a rectification petition and that the scope of rectification is very limited. It was further pointed out that errors that are capable of being corrected under section 66 of the Act are those that must be evident on a mere glance at the record and not those errors which could, by a long drawn out process of reasoning, be identified. It was further pointed out that the petitioner itself had not sought any opportunity of hearing and in such circumstances, the impugned order is not open for any rectification or interference. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to bear in mind the statutory provision dealing with the powers of rectification. Section 66 of the KVAT Act deals with the power of rectification and reads as below: 66. Power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record.- (1) Any authority including Appellate Tribunal and Settlement Commission issuing any ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13. In the decision in R.K.Latex Private Limited v. State of Kerala (ILR 2007 (4) Ker 365) while considering the power of rectification under section 43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, it was held by this Court that only mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by the jurisdiction for rectification while an erroneous decision can be corrected only by the statutory remedy of appeals. Similarly in the decision in Kairali Ayurvedic Health Resort Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (2013 (1) KLT 99), it was held that an illegal decision cannot be corrected by invoking the power of rectification and under the guise of rectification a rehearing cannot be sought for. 14. In yet another decision of the Supreme Court reported as Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 2 SCC 439], it was held that the power of rectification does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. The following observations are relevant. "9. An error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to effect rectification must be such an error....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid that the impugned order was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 18. The unreported decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the circumstances of this case. In the decision in Punj Lloyd Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (W.P.(C) No.31463 of 2010), this Court had found the order under section 66 to be cryptic and could not discern any application of mind to the grounds raised and hence this Court interfered with the order under section 66 of the Act. Similarly in the decision in M/s. Favourite Constructions Private Limited. v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No.2804 of 2021), this Court interfered since despite a prayer requesting for a hearing on the rectification application, such an opportunity was not granted. Again in the decision in M/s. Delta Communications v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No.28601 of 2020), this Court set aside the order under section 66 of the Act on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice for not affording an opportunity of hearing. The said decision had not considered the nature of the statutory provis....