2026 (8) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ause has been raised before this Court due to an order passed on the application filed by the trader i.e. the petitioner of writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18777 of 2016 i.e. M/s. Durga Marketing (respondent of captioned Special Civil Application No.14245/2016) by filing a Rectification Application under Section 72 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act'), learned advocate Ms. Priyal Parikh, at this point, has suggested that in the interest of justice the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Rectification Application No.107 of 2009 at Annexure-G1 (at page 89) filed in Revision Application No. 25 of 2003 and liberty may be reserved in favor of the petitioner-M/s. Durga Marketing to challenge the origin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the Tribunal has also committed an error in entertaining such application by restoring the Revision Application No. 25 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2009 by entertaining such application. 6. We may clarify few facts, at this stage. The petitioner alongwith one M/s. S.B. Trading Company filed Revision Application No. 25 of 2003 and Second Appeal No.674 of 2003 challenging the action of the department of revising the assessment and raising of the demand for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999. Both the aforesaid Revision Application No. 25 of 2003 and Second Appeal No.674 of 2003 were heard together by the Tribunal and disposed of by the order dated 06.05.2009, by allowing it to the extent of setting aside th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide order dated 06.09.2010, allowed the Rectification Application by observing that after going through the order the matter requires to be taken into reconsideration and the Revision Application No. 25 of 2003 was ordered to be restored. Thus, the order which was in favour of the M/s Durga Marketing is recalled on its rectification application, which is impermissible. 9. Section 72 of the Act permits rectification of any mistake of fact apparent from the record only, in the order passed by the Commissioner or the Tribunal. The petitioner- M/s. Durga Marketing by filing the application sought the matter to be reheard on merits on left out issues, and the Tribunal allowed the application by restoring the original proceedings by recallin....