1976 (1) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... regular assessment made on February 17, 1968, a copy of which is annexure " 1 " and the consequent demand in pursuance of the above impugned order dated February 16, 1973, a copy of which is annexure " 2 ", should not be quashed and cancelled. The relevant facts are these : Smt. Janki Kuer, the Maharani of Bettiah Estate, died on November 27, 1954, when the estate was under the court of wards, Bihar. After her death a return was filed by the manager on February 14, 1958 (wrongly stated in the writ petition as February 11, 1958), in the office of the Assistant Controller (respondent No. 2) declaring the principal value of the properties owned and possessed by the late Maharani at Rs. 62,55,683 who made a provisional assessment on the same d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of Rs. 1,25,39,657 thereby creating a demand of Rs. 44,17,113 (wrongly mentioned in the copy of the order, annexure "1" as Rs. 43,19,855). Now comes the order which is under challenge, namely, annexure "1", which was passed on February 16, 1973, by respondent No. 2. By this order he purported to add a sum of Rs. 46,016 as interest said to have left to be included through oversight while making the final order of assessment under section 58 of the Act on account of " deferred payments of the provisional demand ". It has been mentioned in the impugned order that " on the final assessment the demand had to be created including the interest chargeable under section 70 on deferred payment of the demand raised earlier... It is only the mista....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal may, on his or its own motion, rectify any mistake apparent from the record and shall within a like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to the notice of the Controller or the other two authorities mentioned above, as the case may be, by the person accountable. From the provision contained in section 61 it is abundantly clear to us that the power to rectify a mistake must be apparent from the record and is apparently a question of jurisdiction. In other words, if the mistake sought to be rectified under the provisions of section 61 is not a mistake apparent from the record, there is no authority in the Controller to correct the same under the provisions of section 61 of the Act. We have already said earlier that ....