ARORA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant preferred this AR over the endorsement dated 29 -12 -2009 issued by the O/o the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Division, Hyderabad. The office took objection as to how the appeal is maintainable against the endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner, Abids Division, Hyderabad. In fact the matter was called up at the Bench at the instance of the counsel appearing for the appellant. The counsel for the appellant advanced the arguments stating that any order passed by any authority under the provisions of the Act is appealable. It is contended that arithmetical mistake has been crept in the Revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and hence they filed an application under Rule 50 of the APCST Rules, 1957 for rectifying the arithmetical mistake. Now the point for consideration is:

(2.) POINT : - The impugned endorsement of the Deputy Commissioner on perusal shows that the Deputy Commissioner opined that after having received the Revisional order, the appellant if aggrieved could have filed appeals before this Tribunal within 60 days after receipt of the Revisional proceedings and having failed to do the same, he filed this petition under Rule 50 and it is being rejected as not maintainable since there are no arithmetical mistakes in the revision orders for rectification. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that they addressed a letter dated 20 -10 -2009, followed by a registered notice dated 16 -12 -2009 to the Revisional Authority, in which they stated that the Deputy Commissioner would have applied the formula 12/112 to the gross turnover but applied a different formula as 2/100. Hence, they request the Deputy Commissioner to revise the proceedings under Rule 50 by adopting the correct formula. The Deputy Commissioner in his order found that the Commercial Tax Officer only applied two different tax rate rates i.e., at 8% for part of the assessment and 12% for the part of the assessment period. Hence, he proposed to levy tax at 12% on the turnover of Fitness Equipment as per Rule 5 read with Section 14 under residuary entry of seventh schedule. The assessee objected for it. The objection was rejected and levied tax @ 12%.

(3.) A reading of the above Rule shows that the appellate authority or the assessing authority or the revisional Authority suo motu if comes to the conclusion that there is any arithmetical error can rectify clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record. In case the rectification has the effect of enhancing an assessment, penalty or any fee, it shall be made only after issuing notice to the assessee. Strictly speaking, suo motu powers have been conferred under Rule 50 in favour of the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority for rectifying the mistakes. However, generally the authorities are entertaining the applications filed under Rule 50.