State of Punjab and others vs The P.O. Sales Tax Tribunal and another

N.K. Sud, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order u/s 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as

the Act"") dated May 10, 1995 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab.

M/s. Sangrur Banaspati Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ""the dealer""), the respondent No. 2, is a dealer registered under the Punjab

General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Its assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 was completed by the Excise and

Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Sangrur vide order dated December 5, 1985 in which a demand of Rs. 12,61,124 was created by

disallowing some consignment transactions. It filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner

(Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated May 8, 1990. Not satisfied, the dealer filed a second appeal before the

Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, ""the Tribunal""), Punjab which was also dismissed vide order dated March 31, 1992. The dealer filed an application

for rectification u/s 21-A of the Act on December 27, 1993 before the Tribunal alleging some mistakes, in its order dated March 31, 1992. The

Tribunal vide its detailed order dated December 27, 1993 dismissed the said application holding that there was no mistake apparent from record in

its order dated March 31, 1992. Meanwhile, the dealer had also filed an application u/s 21 of the Act requiring the Sales Tax Tribunal to refer

certain questions of law arising out of its order dated March 31, 1992 to this Court. The said application was also declined by the Tribunal by its

order dated April 28, 1994. Thereafter the dealer moved this Court u/s 22(2) of the Act seeking a direction to the Tribunal for referring the

questions of law arising out of its order dated March 31, 1992 to this Court for its opinion. The said case was registered in this Court as S.T.C.

No. 54 of 1994. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference application before this Court, the dealer filed a second application u/s 21-A of the

Act before the Tribunal seeking rectification of some mistakes in its order dated March 31, 1992 on April 24, 1995. It is in response to this

application that the impugned order dated May 10, 1995 has been passed by the Tribunal whereby it has rectified its order dated March 31, 1992

allowing certain reliefs to the dealer-respondent No. 2.

Shri M. C. Berry, D.A.G., Punjab appearing on behalf of the petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pass the impugned order

on various grounds. It has been firstly contended that the impugned order is barred by time. For this purpose it was pointed out that a plain reading

of sub-section (1) of section 21-A of the Act shows that the mistake, if any, in an order could be rectified within 2 years from the date of such

order. In this case vide impugned order dated May 10, 1995 the Tribunal had rectified its order dated March 31, 1992 which it was not

competent to do.

On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Bindal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 contended that the impugned order was not time barred as it merely

rectified earlier order of the Tribunal passed u/s 21-A of the Act dated December 27, 1993.

The contention raised on behalf of the dealer has no merit. A plain reading of the order of the Tribunal shows that it rectified its order dated

March 31, 1992 and not the order dated December 27, 1993 as alleged by the counsel for respondent No. 2. We have referred to the provisions

of section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the relevant sub-sections (1) and (2) are reproduced below :

21A. Rectification of mistakes. - (1) The Commissioner or the officer on whom the powers of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section

21 have been conferred by the State Government may, at any time within two years from the date of any order passed by him, of his own motion,

rectify any mistake apparent from the record, and shall within a like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by any

person affected by such order :

Provided that no such rectification shall be made if it has the effect of enhancing the tax or reducing the amount of refund, unless the Commissioner

or the officer on whom the powers of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 21 have been conferred by the State Government has

given notice in writing to such person of his intention to do so and has allowed such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall apply to the rectification of a mistake by a Tribunal as they apply to the rectification of a mistake by the

Commissioner.

It is therefore evident from a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions that the order dated March 31, 1992 could not be rectified beyond March

31, 1994. The impugned order having been made on May 10, 1995 is invalid and void ab initio on this ground alone. We, therefore, have no

hesitation in quashing the said order.

In view of the fact that the impugned order has been quashed on the ground of limitation, we do not find it necessary to address to various other

objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal dated May 10, 1995 (annexure P2) is quashed. No

costs.

Writ petition allowed.