A decision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record and the debatable issue cannot be the subject of an order of rectification.
Rectification of mistake— Section 102 of CGST Act— The present matter is an application for rectification of mistake filed by appellant to rectify errors which apparently have occurred in the appeal order passed by this authority.
In the present application, the applicant has alleged that the impugned order suffers from the following 'errors' which require to be rectified:
a) The impugned order passed by this Authority has put the Appellant in a worse situation than before.
b) The clause 27 of the Appellant's agreement with the Thane Municipal Corporation has not been correctly interpreted by this Authority.
c) This Authority has erroneously concluded that the Appellant is not able to satisfy the 25% criteria as per Entry 3A of the Notification No 12/2017 CT (R) dated 28-06-2017.
d) This Authority has not considered the rulings given by the Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of VFS Global Services Pvt Ltd and in the case of Super Wealth Financial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
held that— the issues raised by the applicant in the ROM application have ample scope for argument and debate. The plain meaning of the phrase 'apparent on record' is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that decision on debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remained to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification. A mistake apparent from the record is one to point out and for which no elaborate argument is required. It must be a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. A mistake which is not gatherable from the record as it stands and requires for being shown to be a mistake, matter or evidence extraneous to record is not a mistake apparent from the record. In a nutshell we hold that the provisions of Section 102 of the CGST Act cannot be pressed into play in order to make a revision in a matter on which there could be two plausible interpretations.
A decision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record and the debatable issue cannot be the subject of an order of rectification.
Rectification of mistake— Section 102 of CGST Act— The present matter is an application for rectification of mistake filed by appellant to rectify errors which apparently have occurred in the appeal order passed by this authority.
In the present application, the applicant has alleged that the impugned order suffers from the following 'errors' which require to be rectified:
a) The impugned order passed by this Authority has put the Appellant in a worse situation than before.
b) The clause 27 of the Appellant's agreement with the Thane Municipal Corporation has not been correctly interpreted by this Authority.
c) This Authority has erroneously concluded that the Appellant is not able to satisfy the 25% criteria as per Entry 3A of the Notification No 12/2017 CT (R) dated 28-06-2017.
d) This Authority has not considered the rulings given by the Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of VFS Global Services Pvt Ltd and in the case of Super Wealth Financial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
held that— the issues raised by the applicant in the ROM application have ample scope for argument and debate. The plain meaning of the phrase 'apparent on record' is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that decision on debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remained to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification. A mistake apparent from the record is one to point out and for which no elaborate argument is required. It must be a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. A mistake which is not gatherable from the record as it stands and requires for being shown to be a mistake, matter or evidence extraneous to record is not a mistake apparent from the record. In a nutshell we hold that the provisions of Section 102 of the CGST Act cannot be pressed into play in order to make a revision in a matter on which there could be two plausible interpretations.