The main legal point established in the judgment is that a revising authority's order can be rectified under Section 25a of the Act to bring it in conformity with the law laid down by previous court decisions.

S. R. RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-firm supplied Polyurethene foam-sheets to various manufactures for use by them as component parts of goods manufactured by them for sale within the State. During the year 1-4-1976 to 31-7-77 the turnover in respect of the foam sheets supplied by the petitioner-Co. , amounted to rs. 12,13,614-40 Ps. The petitioner's turnover in the same goods suppled to others was also returned separately and it was Rs. 14,71,943-27 Ps.

( 2 ) THESE gdods were liable to tax under entry 16 of Sch. II to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act at 12% under Section 5 (3a) of the Act during the relevant period.

( 3 ) IN respect of the goods, which were sold to a registered dealer for use by the latter as component parts, they were subjected to leby at a concessional rate of 3% under Section 5 (3a) of the Act.

( 4 ) THE Assessing Officer made an order of assessment scrutinising the declarations filed by the dealers to whom the goods were sold and taxed the turnover under Section 5 (3a) of the Act at 3%. The supplies made to others of the same goods, was however taxed at 12%. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer on 27-8-1977 and the petitioner was given the benefit of concessional rate by accepting its turnover. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore City Division, bangalore, initiated action in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 21 (2) of the K. S. T. Act and revised the order of the C. T. O. in so far as it related to the concessional rate granted under section 5 (3a) of the Act was concerned. The main reason for revising the order of assessment was that one of the purchasers, namely, M/s. Karnataka Coir products Ltd, Bangalore, who had issued declaration Form No. 37, had not manufactured any goods for sale within the state as required under Section 5 (3a) of the Act. On the other hand, they had effected sales of the goods supplied by the petitioner to the Maharastra State road Transport Corporation. He relied upon a letter dated 30-8-77 issued by the Karnataka Coir Products Ltd. , for coming to this conclusion The Deputy commissioner of Commercial Taxes, thereupon, withdraw the concessional rate at which the goods had suffered tax under Sec. 5 (3a) by setting aside that portion of the order and held that the same was liable to be taxed at 12% instead of 3%.

( 5 ) THE petitioner did not challenge that order until he filed a rectification application under Section 25a of the Act on 12-1-1982. By the said application the petitioner sought for a rectification of the order made by the D. C. , under section 21 (2) relying upon the decision of this Cqurt in Bangalore Motor Accessories v Deputy Commissioner of Comml. Taxes. Bangalore (47 STC 54 ). It was urged by the petitioner that it was entitled to the concessional rate of tax on production of declaration in Form No. 37 issued by the purchaser and the non- user of the goods by the purchaser for manufacture of any other goods inside the State for sale, as required under section 5 (3a) of the Act; was immaterial. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the order of the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the assessment and withdrawing the concessional rate, should therefore be rectified in view of the decision of this court in Bangalore motor Accessories Case, referred to above.

( 6 ) THE Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejected the said application by his order dated 15th March 1982. He held, that there was no mistake apparent from the records warranting rectification of the order made by his predecessor under Sec. 21 (2) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner, however, held that what was sold by the petitioner were finished sheets and not foam rubber in the form of sheets.

( 7 ) THIS order of the Deputy Commissioner is challenged in this writ petition. it is argued by Sri S. P. Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no error in the assessment order and the concessional rate of tax was allowed by the asse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document