CRUST FOOD COMPANY Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST (DIVISION VI)
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 1323 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 519 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-3-2018
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4316 of 2018
Service Tax
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B. N. KARIA, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Mr Virat G Popat (3710)
For The Petitioner : Tirth N Bhatt (8487)
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Chintan Dave, who has been served with an advance copy, waives rule at our request. Since the issue involved is very small, we propose to dispose of this petition at this very stage.
2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 09.01.2018 passed
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ncial years 2014-15 till September 2016, the exemption was totally ignored. As a result of this, sizeable amount of restaurant income was added to the taxable value of the petitioner's turn over.
4. The Adjudicating authority, by the impugned order, rejected such an application. He noted the statutory provision enabling the competent authority to rectify his own order subject to certain conditions. He was however, of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising such powers of rectification. According to him, a mistake can be rectified only if it is apparent from the record. His observations were as under:
” It can be seen from the above provision, if the matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t to a back door entry, to circumvent the provisions of law under section 85. That is to say, that, if an appeal is not filed within time under section 85, the opportunity to reopen the assessment cannot be read into provisions of section 74.”
5. Perusal of the above portion would show that the application of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no error apparent on the face of the record which could be rectified and secondly, entertaining such an application for rectification would circumvent the limitation period in case of a person who had missed the bus of filing of appeal. The Assistant Commissioner has not stated why according to him what the petitioner pointed out was not an apparent error. Secondly,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =