TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 1999-2000. The Petitioner, a small scale industrial unit, was engaged in purchase of field rubber latex, conversion of the same to centrifuged latex or creamed latex and sale of the said products both local and interstate. Natural rubber in all it's forms including field latex and centrifuged latex during the relevant time were covered by the same entry in the First Schedule to the KGST Act taxable at the point of last purchase in the State. Even though this Court in the decision in M/s Supersonic Industrial Complex, Muvattupuzha v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (2002) 10 K.T.R. 202 held that centrifuged rubber is a manufactured product which would have led to tax liability on purchase turnover of field latex for the Petitioner, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rate-over the 4% remitted by the Petitioner as a small scale industrial unit engaged in manufacture only is entitled to concessional rate. Therefore, Petitioner has filed the W.Ps. challenging Ext. P-2 on the ground that there is no justification to modify the earlier appellate order as there was no apparent mistake that could be rectified under Section 43 of the KGST Act. 2. I heard senior counsel Sri Arshad Hidayathulla, appearing for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents. The short question to be considered is whether Ext. P-2 proceedings issued by the Tribunal under Section 43 of the KGST Act is justified or not. For easy reference the said Section is extracted hereunder: Section 43. Po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s justified in invoking powers under Section 43 in this case. It is not in dispute that the sole ground on which Tribunal invoked the jurisdiction under Section 43 is that while disposing of the appeal in the first round through Ext. P-1 order, they did not follow the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kurian Abraham's case above referred. In fact, in the rectified order also they have not decided the appeal based on the ruling of this Court in the said Full Bench decision. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner rightly pointed out that there was no mistake on the face of the order of the Tribunal warranting correction under Section 43 because the Tribunal itself has in Ext. P-1 discussed in detail several decisions of the Suprem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in 82 I.T.R. 50 where the Supreme Court has held that a debatable point is not a mistake apparent from the record of the case. This view is supported by decision of the Supreme Court in Vardhman Spinning Mill's case reported in 226 I.T.R. 296 where the Court has held that when two views are possible, the earlier decision cannot be subject-matter of rectification. Therefore, I hold that the Tribunal wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 43 of the KGST Act to correct their earlier order. Ext. P-2 order of rectification issued and produced in all the W.Ps. are accordingly set aside. 3. Government Pleader in the course of argument submitted that the original order of the Tribunal was not accepted by Respondents. However, by the ti....