State of Tamil Nadu vs Speedline Agencies

Jayasimha Babu, J.—This revision is filed by the State which was the respondent before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Coimbatore, in an appeal against the order of rejection of an application for rectification filed by the assessee. The rectification sought was in the

order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment year 1980-81. It was the case of the assessee that it had produced

C"" forms before the assessing officer but those forms were not considered and therefore the order required rectification. The Tribunal allowed the

appeal and while doing so, the Tribunal directed the concerned assessing officer to ""pass a fresh assessment order"" on the basis of the ""C"" forms

produced by the assessee.

The learned Government Advocate submitted that the Tribunal has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by entertaining the appeal against the

order of an authority which had declined to rectify its order on the grounds urged by the assessee. Reliance was placed on section 55(4) of the

Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. That sub-section was inserted by Act 31 of 1972. That sub-section reads thus :

Section 55(4) : The provisions of this Act relating to appeal and revision shall apply to an order of rectification made under this section as they

apply to the order in respect of which such order of rectification has been made.

The main section 55 deals with power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. Section 55(1) confers powers on the assessing

authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) which may, at any time within five years from the date of any order

passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. The provision requires the authority to give notice to the dealer and reasonable

opportunity to such dealer before making an order of rectification which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or any penalty. Section 55(2)

provides that if the rectification has the effect of reducing an assessment or penalty, the assessing authority shall make any refund which may be due

to the dealer. Section 55(3) provides that in the event of enhancement the assessing authority shall give a revised notice of assessment or penalty to

the dealer, and thereupon the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder shall apply as if such notice had been given in the first instance.

Section 55(3-A) provides that the powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the assessing authorities even though the original order of

assessment, passed in the matter has been the subject-matter of an appeal or revision.

The power conferred by these provisions is a power to be exercised for the purpose of rectifying the errors apparent on the face of the record.

It enables the assessee as also the Revenue to seek such rectification without filing an appeal or revision against the order sought to be rectified,

even after the expiry of time prescribed for filing appeals, provided, the application is made within five years from the date of the original order. An

order which has been the subject-matter of appeal or revision may also be rectified in respect of errors apparent on the face of the record.

This power to rectify the error apparent on the face of the record is in addition to the provisions for appeal and revision. An order made by an

authority in respect of which the affected party has a grievance, can in normal circumstances be modified or set aside only by a superior authority

to which an appeal or revision may lie. That is the manner in which, any aggrieved party, in normal circumstances, is expected to obtain relief

against the orders made by subordinate authorities. The right to seek rectification is an additional right, but it is a right which is limited to the

circumstances referred to in section 55 of the Act, namely, to seek correction of errors apparent on the face of the record. The authority which

made the original order is itself empowered under this section to correct or remove the errors apparent on the face of the record.

Any order made by an authority declining to correct any alleged errors has the effect of leaving the original order intact. It is only when

rectification is ordered, and as a consequence, one of the parties is aggrieved by such modification, a remedy is required to be provided. For that

purpose section 55(4) of the Act has been introduced. That new sub-section (4) of section 55 does not confer a right on an applicant who

unsuccessfully seeks rectification, to file appeal or revision against the order declining to rectify. If the authority which made the original order is of

the view that there are in fact no errors in the order which need to be rectified, or can be rectified u/s 55 of the Act, no further proceedings can be

taken by applicant, against the refusal of the authority to make an order in favour of the person applying for rectification.

The policy of the statute is to ensure finality at some point of time and not to confer a right on a party to reagitate the matters after it has became

final.

The Tribunal was therefore in error in entertaining an appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to rectify the

alleged errors. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The revision petition is allowed.

Petition allowed.