STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SANATAN PATHAL
LAWS(ORI)-1973-3-9
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on March 08,1973

STATE OF ORISSA Appellant
VERSUS
SANATAN PATHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.K.MISRA, J. - (1.) SRI Sanatan Pathal (respondent) was assessed under section 12 (8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), for five quarters ending 31st March, 1959, to 31st March, 1960. He was alleged to have been carrying on business in timber and firewood. The Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, by his order dated 12th November, 1968, did not interfere with the assessment under section 12 (8) though he allowed the appeal by reducing the quantum of turnover. The assessee filed an application for review. The ground that was urged in support of the review was that unless an assessment had been previously made under section 12 (5) of the Act, subsequent assessment under section 12 (8) was without jurisdiction.
(2.) THE learned Tribunal accepted this contention and allowed the review application on 8th February, 1969. Against this order the State of Orissa asked for reference under section 24 (1) of the Act. The reference was made on 16th December, 1969, and the following two questions were referred to the High Court for answer : " (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was right in passing an order dated 8th February, 1969, under rule 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that assessment under section 12 (8) is not maintainable where there has been earlier no notice and no assessment under section 12 (5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act ?" The factual basis of the first question may be noticed in short as appears from the appellate order of the Tribunal. Counsel for the assessee had contended that the assessment for the first five quarters, that is to say, the impugned quarters, under section 12 (8) was not correct as the assessee was never assessed under section 12 (5) of the Act. On behalf of the State, it has been contended that the dealer (respondent) had been previously assessed for the first quarter under section 12 (5 ). The Tribunal observed that the records did not show that the dealer was assessed under section 12 (5) earlier. Though the Tribunal said that there were no records to come to the conclusion that the respondent was assessed under section 12 (5), it did not carry the matter to its logical conclusion and did not give any relief to the dealer on this score.
(3.) THE review application was filed under rule 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, which runs thus : " 83. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Sales Tax Officer, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer or the Tribunal may at any time correct any arithmetical or clerical mistakes or any error apparent on the face of the record arising or occurring from accidental slip or omission in an order passed by him, or it. " Referring to this rule, the learned Tribunal allowed the application and annulled the assessment for the first five quarters, that is, quarters ending 31st March, 1959, to 31st March, 1960. The language of rule 83 is plain and is not capable of any wide construction, and it is not open to any of the taxing authorities to enter into the merits of the matter and correct their errors of law or fact committed in the earlier judgment. The correction is only confined to any arithmetical or clerical mistakes or any other error apparent on the face of the record and where no lengthy argument is necessary to find out accidental slip or omission in an order. This rule itself came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa ([1966] 17 S. T. C. 360 (S. C.)), and at page 364 their Lordships observed : " But, however wide the said expressions are construed, they cannot countenance a re-argument on merits on questions of fact or law, or permit a party to raise new arguments which he has not advanced at the first instance. " The learned Tribunal, therefore, acted illegally in exercise of his jurisdiction in entertaining the review application and by examining whether the records justified the dealer's stand that there was no earlier assessment under section 12 (5) of the Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.