Case: Commercial Tax-Officer, Bangalore, Etc. Etc Vs. Sri Venkateswara Oil Mills &amp; Anr. Etc. Etc

2. The amendment in question came to be enacted under the following circumstances. The High Court of Mysore in Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons v. State of Mysore, (1962) 13 STC 583 (Mys), held that under S. 8 (2) of the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956, prior to its amendment by Act 31 of 1958 a "sale" in the course of inter-State trade or commerce is to be taxed at the same rate and in the same manner as it would have been taxed, under the appropriate State law, if it had been an intra-State transaction, but without taking into consideration the minimum turnover fixed by the State law for the purpose of determining the liability of the "dealer" to be assessed under the State sales tax law. It further held that the words "same manner" in Section 8 (2) relate to the calculation of the tax and not refer to the procedure to be adopted while assessing the "dealer."3. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons, 16 STC 231   = (AIR 1965 SC 1510  ). Thereafter on June 9, 1969, the President of India promulgated the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance 1969, with the object of superseding the effect of the decision in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Settys case and to bring to tax sales effected by every dealer in the course of inter State trade or commerce notwithstanding the fact that no tax could have been levied under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if that sale had been an intra-State sale. That provision was given retrospective effect but it was provided in S. 10 (1) of the Amendmentany sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has been effected during the period between the 10th day of November, 1964 and the 9th day of June 1969, and the dealer effecting such sale has not collected any tax under the principal Act on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected in respect of such sale or any portion of the turnover relating to such sale and no such tax could have been levied or collected if the amendments made in the principal Act by this Act had not been made, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 9 or the said amendments, the dealer shall not be liable to pay any tax under the principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such sale or such part of the turnover relating to such(2) of S. 10the purposes of sub-sec. (1) the burden of proving that no tax was collected under the principal Act in respect of any sale referred to in sub-section (1) or in respect of any portion of the turnover relating to such sale shall be on the dealer effecting such sale.That Ordinance was replaced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969. After the amendment came into force several Sales Tax Officers who had earlier assessed the assessees in accordance with the decision in Yadalam Lakshminarasimhiah Settys case 16 STC 231   = (AIR 1965 SC 1510  ) issued notices to those assessees proposing to rectify their assessments on the ground that the earlier assessments suffered from mistakes apparent on the record. The respondents in these appeals resisted those notices on the ground that they had no competence to reopen the assessment. The Sales-tax Officers rejected that contention. Thereafter the respondents in these appeals challenged the orders made by the Sales-tax Officers before the High Court of Mysore by means of petitions under Art 226 of the Constitution on two grounds viz. (l) that the Sales-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as there was no mistake apparent on the record and (2) that the said Officer was in error in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had collected tax on the turnover which was earlier considered as exempted. The High Court accepted the first of the two afore-mentioned contentions viz. that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reassess the assessees as it was impermissible for him to receive any additional evidence with a view to decide the question whether the assessees had collected sales tax on the turnovers in question and consequently he could not take any assistance from Rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957.

Reasoning:
7. The High Court opined, in our opinion rightly, that in order to attract the power to rectify it is not sufficient, if there is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent on the record. It is well settled that if a subsequent legislation is given retrospective effect and is deemed to have been in force at the time when the order to be rectified was made then the law to be applied is the amended law -see M. K. Venkatachalam, Income-tax Officer v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 34 1TR 143 = (AIR l958 SC 875).In other words for finding out whether there is a mistake apparent on the record, the authority has to look to the amended law and not to the law that was in force at the time the original order was made. The High Court had accepted this principle but it proceeded to rule that for finding out whether there was a mistake apparent on the record or not, it is not permissible for the Sales Tax Officer to take any evidence whatsoever as the mistake to be rectified must be apparent on the record. On that premises it held that because it is not permissible for the assessee to adduce additional evidence to show that they have not collected tax, it is not open to the assessing authorities to reopen the assessments. This approach is neither logical nor sound in law. Section 10 of the Amendment Act mitigates the rigor of the amendment made to S. 6 of the Principal Act. But for S. 10 of the Amendment Act, every dealer would have had to pay tax on the turnovers in question whether he had collected tax or not. If the impact of S. 10 is ignored, as the High Court has done, then the assessments in question are liable to be re-opened whether the assessees had collected the tax or not. The assessees cannot have the benefit of S. 10 (l) and not the burden of proof placed on them under S. 10 (2).If the reasoning of the High Court is correct then it is the assessees who will be deprived of the benefit of S. 10 (l) of the Amendment Act because there could not have been any finding in the original assessment orders that the assessees had not collected tax. The legislative intention is clear and beyond doubt. The law gives a further opportunity to the assessees whose assessments are sought to be reopened to satisfy the assessing authorities that they had not collected tax in respect of the turnovers in question. Rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules must be read with S. l0 of the Amendment Act. If so read, it is clear that the assessing authorities before re-assessing the dealers should afford them reasonable opportunity to satisfy them that they have not collected tax.