MURLI CHITRALOK Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by one of the partner of registered partnership firm M/s. Murli Chitralok assailing order dt. 31.3.1995 (Ann. 8) passed on rectification application filed u/Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Entertainment (And Advertisements) Tax Rules, 1957 (Rules 1957) for two separate composition period 1.5.1987 to 30.4.1988 and 1.5.1988 to 30.4.1989. Two separate composition orders came to be passed by the authority on 25.5.1987 and 18.6.1988 in view of the departmental circular dt. 6.9.1986, however at a later stage the petitioner came across the Circular of the Department dt. 10.12.1986 which remain overlooked and taking note thereof he filed rectification application u/Rule 32 of the Rules 1957 on 14.10.1991 but it was rejected by the respondent vide order dt. 31.3.95 primarily on the ground of limitation. Counsel submits that composition order was passed by the authority taking note of earlier circular dt. 6.9.86 however, later circular dt. 10.12.86 where certain amendments were made, remain overlooked and that according to him was apparent mistake committed by the authority. However, the authority in its order dt. 31.3.95 took note of these objections and observed that no amendment is permissible u/Rule 32(4) of the Rules, 1957 after expiry of four years from the date of order sought to be amended. Admittedly, as regard the period 1.5.1987 to 30.4.1988 limitation of four years expired but as regard the composition period of 1.5.88 to 30.4.89 the order was passed on 18.6.88 and the application submitted u/R. 32 of the Rules 1957 dt. 14.10.1991 was within the period of limitation and at least finding which has been recorded by the authority rejecting the application u/R. 32 to the extent is not sustainable which requires to be examined afresh.

(2.) In counter counsel for respondent submits that since both the composition period are based on the same analogy and if the petitioner is unable to sustain the order passed for the period May, 87 to April 88, the later order could not be rectified u/R. 32 of the Rules 1957.

(3.) This Court find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the departmental circular dt. 6.9.1986 and dt. 10.12.1986 both the circulars are applicable but as regard composition period in question from 1.5.87 to 30.4.88 the order was passed on 25.5.1987 and the period of limitation provided u/R 32(4) stood expired but indisputably the application for the composition period 1.5.88 to 30.4.89 was within the period of limitation and the authority could not be held justified in rejecting the rectification application filed by the petitioner u/R 32 of the Rules 1957 at least for the composition period 1.5.88 to 30.4.88.