Skip to content


R.K.B. One Mills Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 1157 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1970]25STC321(All)
AppellantR.K.B. One Mills
RespondentState of U.P. and ors.
Appellant AdvocateG.D. Srivastava, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - if having regard to the existing material on the record of the assessment at the time when the assessment order was made, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous, clearly there is no case for rectification under section 22 of the act. we are not satisfied that the case falls within the scope of section 22 of the act......the purchasing dealers. he made an application under section 22 of the u.p. sales tax act to the sales tax officer for amending the assessment order after taking into consideration the 'c' forms. on 13th april, 1966, the sales tax officer rejected the application. thereafter the petitioner field a revision application. that application was dismissed on 29th september, 1967, by the additional judge (revisions), sales tax. then the petitioner made another application before the additional judge (revisions), this time under section 22 of the act, praying for rectification of the order dated 29th september, 1967. that application was rejected on 19th march, 1968. the petitioner now prays for certiorari against the orders dated 29th october, 1965, and 13th april, 1966, made by the sales tax.....
Judgment:

R.S. Pathak, J.

1. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1963-64 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The turnover was assessed at the rate of 10% and the benefit of the concessional rate incorporated in Section 8(1)(b) of the Act was not extended to the petitioner because he did not file any Form 'C' in respect of the relevant sales. The assessment order was made on 29th October, 1965. Subsequently it is said, the petitioner received the 'C' Forms from the purchasing dealers. He made an application under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to the Sales Tax Officer for amending the assessment order after taking into consideration the 'C' Forms. On 13th April, 1966, the Sales Tax Officer rejected the application. Thereafter the petitioner field a revision application. That application was dismissed on 29th September, 1967, by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. Then the petitioner made another application before the Additional Judge (Revisions), this time under Section 22 of the Act, praying for rectification of the order dated 29th September, 1967. That application was rejected on 19th March, 1968. The petitioner now prays for certiorari against the orders dated 29th October, 1965, and 13th April, 1966, made by the Sales Tax Officer and the orders dated 29th September, 1967, and 19th March, 1968, made by the Additional Judge (Revisions).

2. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the Sales Tax Officer erred in not rectifying the assessment order by taking into account the 'C' Forms filed by him. Now, the jurisdiction under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act enables the Sales Tax Officer to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record of assessment. The mistake must be one which is reflected in the assessment order. It may be a mistake committed in an earlier part of the proceeding, but its effect must have a consequential impact upon the assessment order. If having regard to the existing material on the record of the assessment at the time when the assessment order was made, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous, clearly there is no case for rectification under Section 22 of the Act. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner had not filed 'C' Forms with the Sales Tax Officer before the assessment order was made. He received 'C' Forms only after the assessment order had been completed. The 'C' Forms not having been before the Sales Tax Officer when the assessment order was made by him, it cannot be said that there is any mistake apparent on the face of the record of assessment. The record of assessment did not include the 'C' Forms when the assessment order was made and, therefore, there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record by reference to the 'C' Forms. We are not satisfied that the case falls within the scope of Section 22 of the Act. This ground for challenging the validity of the impugned orders fails.

3. No other ground has been pressed before us.

4. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //