1. This application for revision filed before the Rajasthan High Court stood transferred to this Tribunal with the coining into force of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 and is directed against the judgment dated August 2, 1994 in appeal No. 34/91/ST/Chittorgarh of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, was then known) upholding the judgment dated November 30, 1990 of the Deputy Commissioner, Appeals, Commercial Taxes Udaipur setting aside the order dated August 16, 1990 of the petitioner-assessing authority (AA) made under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 ("RST Act") rectifying the assessment order dated January 16, 1988 made under Section 10, RST Act with respect to the assessment periods April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1985 and April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the material on record.
3. By a notification No. F.4(26)FD/Gr.IV/79-21 dated August 24, 1979, the State Government exempted from tax the sale of machinery in certain circumstances. This notification was effective from April 1, 1979 till March 31, 1984. By another notification No. F.4(14)FD/Gr. IV/84-30 dated September 25, 1985 similar exemption was granted with effect from April 1, 1985 till March 31, 1990. Therefore, there was no exemption available from April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1985. As by the assessment order dated January 16, 1988 the respondent-assessee was allowed exemption on the sale of the machinery even for the period for which no exemption was available the AA rectified it under Section 17, RST Act by his order dated August 16, 1990 and raised a demand on account of tax.
4. Section 17 provides for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The question that arises is whether there was in the instant case of extending exemption when none was available an error apparent from the record. No other point was raised at any stage before the lower appellate authorities or even before this Tribunal.
5. The two lower appellate authorities have concurrently held that this was not an error apparent from the record.
6. The two lower appellate authorities cannot be said to have determined the matter correctly. Extending the advantage of an exemption under a notification that had lapsed as a result of which in the period in question there was no exemption clearly is an error apparent from the record fully rectifiable in exercise of the powers under Section 17, RST Act. It is a glaring error to discover which no application of mind whatsoever is required. It is not a question of opinion or interpretation. It docs not need any reasoning or arguments to uncover.
7. In view of the above the application for revision is accepted and the order dated August 16, 1990 of the AA is upheld and the impugned order of the Board as well as the order dated November 30, 1990 of the Deputy Commissioner, Appeals are set aside. No order as to costs.