AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lakshmana Rao, J.—The respondent passed an assessment order dated February 24, 1983, on a net turnover of Rs. 6,12,25,808 taxable at different rates and levied tax of Rs. 71,70,420.84. One of the items of the turnover that was subjected to levy of tax was Rs. 2,50,609.62, taxable at 3.5 per cent. In computing that portion of turnover and levying tax the respondent committed a patent mistake and computed the tax as Rs. 87,713.15 instead of Rs. 8,771.31. It is stated that a copy of the assessment order was served on the petitioner on March 17, 1983. Within a few days thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated March 21, 1983 to the assessing authority bringing to his notice the mistake committed by him in passing the assessment order and requesting him to rectify the mistake. The letter was received by the assessing authority on March 24, 1983, as is evident from the acknowledgment filed by the petitioner. For reasons best known to the assessing authority, no action was taken for rectification of the mistake in spite of innumerable reminders submitted by the petitioner. Ultimately he submitted a representation dated January 23, 1988, referring to his earlier applications. Thereafter, the order dated October 16, 1989, was passed by the authority rejecting the request of the petitioner stating that he "regrets to interfere in the matter".
Rule 50 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, provides that any assessing authority may, at any time within four years from the date of any order passed by him, rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record. Though the petitioner had submitted the application pointing out the clerical error and requesting for rectification of the same, within a few days after the assessment order was served on him, the assessing authority slept over the matter for more than four years and ultimately informed the petitioner expressing his regrets and inability to interfere in the matter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to observe that the concerned authority has failed to perform his functions in accordance with law, thereby causing great hardship and loss to the petitioner. On a perusal of the relevant papers we are satisfied that the assessing authority had committed a clerical mistake in computing the tax, in the assessment order and when the mistake was brought to the notice of the authority for rectification, within a few days after the order was communicated to the petitioner, he refused to correct the mistake, without any justification. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and hold that the petitioner is liable to pay towards tax only Rs. 8,771.31 instead of Rs. 87,713.15 on the turnover of Rs. 2,50,609.62 (radios costing less than Rs. 150). Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to recover tax in respect of the turnover of Rs. 2,50,609.62 more than Rs. 8,771.31 by way of tax. The assessment order for the year 1981-82 and the consequential demand notice stand modified accordingly. In view of the attitude of the authority in not taking appropriate action when a clerical or or arithmetical mistake has been brought to his notice, despite long lapse of time, we are of the view that this is a fit case where exemplary costs should be awarded to the petitioner against the department. We direct the respondent to pay Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner towards costs in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 200.
If the petitioner had paid any tax over and above the amount referred to above, it is open to him to make a representation to the respondent for refund or adjustment of the same towards future tax, as the case may be.
Writ petition allowed.