COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. BADRI LAL HANUMANPRASAD OF INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and the question of law referred to us is:

(2.) THIS reference arises out of an assessment proceeding, the period of assessment being 1st July, 1957, to 31st March, 1958. In the assessment proceedings, the C form, which was produced by the assessee, was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore. It is also not in dispute that the C form was defective as it bore no date of issue. The Commissioner of Sales Tax noticed this defect and exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction and, after hearing the revision, held that the C form was not in order and further held that the assessing authority was wrong in accepting the form. Against this order of the Commissioner, the assessee went up in appeal before the appellate authority, i. e. , the Board of Revenue. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue felt that when the form was produced before the assessment and, apparently, there was a clerical error, the assessment officer should have got it corrected. But it appears that the assessment officer did not notice the defect and, therefore, did not give an opportunity to the assessee to remove the defect. But the defect was noticed when the Commissioner of Sales Tax suo motu initiated proceedings for revision of the assessment. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue, therefore, felt that, under such a situation, the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake as apparently it is a clerical mistake, and remanded the case with a direction that the matter be considered in the light of the observations made by the learned Member. On an application submitted by the Commissioner of Sales Tax the Board has made this reference on the question stated above.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel appearing for the department contended that no opportunity for rectification or correction could be given to the assessee in view of the decision of this Court reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Bombay Textile Stores, Ujjain 1977 Vikraya Kar Nirnaya (10) 59. However, the Learned Counsel contended that there are two decisions of this Court taking a contrary view as well, they being Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dayaram Balchand [1973] 31 S. T. C. 249 and K. S. Nazarali Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. [1973] 31 S. T. C. 243