The requirement of notice under S.43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is essential for rectification of assessment errors, reinforcing natural justice principles.

1The petitioner was assessed for the year 1965-66 by the Sales Tax Officer, Ottapalam, the first respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. His turnover was determined at Rs. 14,974.01, of which Rs. 7,480.91 was taxed at 2%; and Rs. 7,493.10 was taxed at 10%. Thus the tax payable by him was Rs. 898.93, consisting of Rs. 149.62 at the 2% rate and Rs. 749.31 at the 10% rate. But in calculating the tax, the Sales Tax Officer showed the tax payable at 10% as R.74.93, instead of Rs. 749.31; and he issued a notice of final assessment and refund order, Ext. P 1 dated 23-9-1966 showing the total tax payable by the petitioner as Rs. 224,55 and allowing him a refund of Rs. 69.84, after setting off the above amount of tax against a sum of Rs. 294.39 which he bad already paid as tax. The Sales Tax Officer noticed the arithmetical error, which he had made in calculating the tax as per his order of assessment. He rectified the same and passed an order Ext. P 2 dated 9-11-1967 showing the correct figures, and requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 604.54 after setting off the above said sum of Rs. 294.39 which he had already paid. The petitioner kept quiet. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, moved for the recovery of the tax due from the petitioner as arrear of land revenue. Accordingly, the Tahsildar (Taxation), Ottapalam, the second respondent destrained the petitioner's cattle, and notified them for sale on 5-4-1969. Thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash Ext, P 2 and direct the second respondent to release the cattle.

2 The contention of the petitioner is that Ext P 2 is bad, as it was made without notice to the petitioner as required by S.43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. That section reads:-
" 43. Power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record.
(1) An assessing authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) may, on application or otherwise, at any time within three years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record:
Provided that no such rectification which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or any penalty shall be made unless such authority has given notice to the person affected and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(2) Where such rectification has the effect of reducing an assessment or penalty, the assessing authority shall make any refund to the person entitled thereto.
(3) Where any such rectification has the effect of enhancing an assessment or penalty, the assessing authority shall give the dealer or other person a revised notice of assessment or penalty, and thereupon the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall apply as if such notice had been given in the first instance.
Explanation:-- The liability to pay the tax or other amount will arise only from the data specified in the revised notice."
Admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner before Ext. P 2 was passed; but the learned Government Pleader contended that notice was not necessary as the error rectified was only an obvious arithmetical error, which did not have the effect of enhancing the assessment, and that all that was done by Ext. P 2. was to show the correct amount of tax payable under the original assessment. The argument is quite attractive; but I think that it cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chockalingam and Meyappan v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1968 (48) ITR 34. In that case, the appellants were assessed as individuals, and notices of final assessment and demand were issued to them accordingly. They had not paid advance tax as required by S.18A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922; and the Income Tax Officer by oversight omitted to add to the tax payable by them as required by sub-s.(8), interest payable under Sub-s.(6) for non payment of the advance tax. When he found out the error, he passed orders rectifying the same and calling up