Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Marico Industries Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2018
Author: P.K. Jaiswal
Bench: Virender Singh, P.K. Jaiswal
1
W. P. No.21702/2017 & others
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri P.K. Jaiswal &
Hon'ble Shri Virender Singh, JJ.
W. P. No.21702 of 2017
W. P. No.21704 of 2017
&
W. P. No.21705 of 2017
(M/s Marico Industries Ltd. vs. The M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board & others)
(M/s Marico Industries Ltd. vs. The M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board & others)
&
(M/s Marico Industries Ltd. vs. The M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board & others)
****************************************************************
Shri P. M. Choudhari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A. Prabhawalkar,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned G. A. for the respondents - State.
****************************************************************
ORDER
(14.02.2018) Per P.K. Jaiswal, J.
Heard on the question of admission.
This order shall govern the disposal of W. P. No.21704/2017 and W. P. No.21705/2017 also. For the sake of convenience, facts are borrowed from W. P. No.21702/2017.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of order dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal in Case No.Rect./11/CTAB/IND/15 by which application filed by the petitioner for rectification of mistake has been rejected and order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal.
3. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacture and sale of edible oil, medicinal and toilet articles including the product under consideration known as "Mediker" for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000.
2W. P. No.21702/2017 & others
4. The Assessing Officer passed the order dated 29.04.2003 (Annexure-P/4) by accepting the claim of the petitioner in respect of the product "Mediker" that the same is to be classified under the category of "Drugs and Medicine"
covered under residuary entry during relevant period in absence of any specific entry in respect of drugs and medicine till 14.03.2000 and, thereafter, falling under specific Entry No.11 Part IV Schedule II relating to "Drugs and Medicine" taxable @ 9.2%. The said assessment order dated 29.04.2003 was reopened by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said goods were liable to be taxed at higher rate of 13.4% under Entry No.4 and Entry No.41 of Part III Schedule II w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and the re-assessment was accordingly completed vide order dated 28.03.2006 (Annexure-P/5).
5. Aggrieved by the re-assessment order, the petitioner filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority who vide order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-P/6) affirmed the re-assessment order and dismissed the appeal.
6. Thereafter, second appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal vide Annexure-P/7. On 06.10.2015, the Appellate Board dismissed the appeal by holding that "Mediker" cannot be a medicament having both therapeutic as well as prophylactic use and that Phenothrin used in Mediker cannot be used for in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention or any disease or disorder. At the best it is used for killing of hair lice.
7. In the meanwhile, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the levy of entry tax on "Mediker" and "Starch" treating it as chemical on the ground that it is not chemical and that its entry into local area is not for sale.
8. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2013 (Annexure- P/8) decided the matter in the matter of Marico Industries Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others reported in 2013 (23) STJ 415 (MP), held that "Mediker" and "Starch" having not been classified under the Entry Tax Act, 1976 nor it is covered under Schedules I and II of the said Act and the aforesaid 3 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others articles are not taxable goods under the statute, then the provisions of the Entry Tax Act cannot be attracted and allowed the writ petition by quashing Annexure-P/1 and Annexure-P/2.
9. The State challenged the said order by filing special leave petition before the Apex Court.
10. The Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. & others vs. Marico Industries Ltd. reported in 2016 (13) STD 242 dismissed the civil appeal of the State by holding the following :-
16. The aforesaid analysis makes it absolutely clear that Mediker which is used for anti-lice treatment is a drug because of its medicinal affect. This position has been accepted by this Court.
Once it is a drug, it cannot be a shampoo. As a natural corollary, it will not invite the liability of levy of entry tax.
17. The second product is Revive instant starch. The revenue claimed it to be a chemical. An endeavour has been made to put it under Entry 55 Schedule II. Entry 55 Schedule II reads as follows:-
"55. All kinds of chemicals and acids, sulpher and bleaching power."
18. The stand of the assessee before the authorities was that it is not a chemical. It is not sold or used for that purpose. It is a starch manufactured by using Tapioca roots. The revenue, per contra, without any material brought on record, put it in the category of a chemical. In Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd.[12] it has been held that the burden of proof is on the taxing authorities to show that the particular case or item in question is taxable in the manner claimed by them. Elucidating further, the Court has held that there should be material to enter appropriate finding in that regard and the material may be either oral or documents and it is for the taxing authority to lay evidence in that behalf even before the first adjudicating authority. Revive instant starch is used while washing the clothes. In common parlance it is not regarded and treated as a chemical or a bleaching powder. If the very substance or product would have a chemical composition, then only it would make the said substance a chemical within the meaning of Entry 55. Needless to say, the purpose and use are to be taken note of. Common parlance test has to be applied. If the revenue desired to establish it as a chemical, it was obligatory on its part to adduce the evidence. As is manifest, no evidence has been brought on record by the revenue that it is a chemical. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that it is not a chemical.
19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the inevitable conclusion is 4 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others that the appeal is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, we so direct. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
11. On 19.12.2015, an application for rectification under Section 4-A(2) of the M. P. VAT Act, 2002 has been filed by the petitioner for rectification of the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Appellate Board in Appeal No.A/66/CTAB/BPL/2008 for the period from 1999-2000.
12. In view of the law laid down by the M. P. High Court in the case of Marico Industries Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others (supra), the rectification application was filed on the ground that the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Appellate Board suffers from serious error apparent on the face of the record, prayed that the order passed by the Board be recalled for re- examining the question on the basis of the test laid down in the decision of the Apex Court or follow the decision of the Apex Court or High Court.
13. The Appellate Board vide order dated 21.08.2017 relying on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P reported in 2008 (12) STJ 142 (SC) has held that "Mistake means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately to make an error in interpreting it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding a misconception.
"Apparent" means visible, capable of being seen, obvious, plain. It means "open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true conspicuous, manifest, obvious, seeming" and rejected the same by holding that the same does not come within the purview of rectification.
14. The Appellate Board affirmed the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Tax on 31.12.2007 by holding the following :-
16. Section 3 (aaa) "Cosmetic" means any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed on, or introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and includes any article intended for use as component of cosmetic.
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was promulgated with an objective of adopting a measure for the uniform 5 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others control in the manufacture and distribution of drugs as well as for import. We can define "Cosmetic" in general, as intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting, attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and includes any article intended for use as component of cosmetic.
17. Going through the definition of cosmetic and comparing it with the composition of Mediker as a shampoo, one cannot deny that Mediker is special kind of shampoo with Phenothrin for killing of hair lice. Shampoo is a hair care product, typically in the form of a viscous liquid, to clear hair. Shampoo is used by applying it to wet hair, massaging the same into the hair, and then rinsing it out. A Shampoo is generality made by combining a surfactant, most often sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureate sulfate, with a co-surfactant, most often cocamidonpopropyl butane in water. Special purpose shampoos are available for people with dandruff, color treated hair, gluten or wheat allergies, an interest in using an "all natural", "organic", "botanical" or "plant-derive" product, and infants and young children ("baby shampoo" is less irritating). There are also shampoos intended for animals that may contain insecticides or other medications for treatment of skin conditions or parasite infestations such as fleas. In the Marico case (supra) it was held that the Mediker was basically medical product but it is used as shampoo and since it is used in the toilet, it is also a toilet good.
18. We find hair shampoo grouped with other cosmetics including medicinal preparation thereof in Entry No.41 of Part III of Schedule II whereas Entry No.11 of Part IV of Schedule II is primarily for drugs and medicines excluding those specified elsewhere in the Schedule. A closer scrutiny would indicate that Mediker does not find its place under Entry No.11 as "medical preparation thereof", is excluded from the entry. The Popular case (supra) is therefore distinguished from the instant case as the former is for the treatment of prickly heat while the latter is for killing of hair lice.
19. Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellate authority did not consider the argument put forth by the appellant citing the case of Sujanil Chemo Industries V/s. Com. C. Excise (2205 7 STJ (SC) and Collector of C. Excise V/s Pharmasia Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 47 ELT 658 (Tribunal) wherein medicament was defined to mean products for therapeutic or prophylactic use. As claimed by the appellant Mediker has therapeutic and prophylactic use as it is used for killing lice. In the above citation the Supreme Court while agreeing with the Pharmasia's case (supra) agreed with the definition of medicament as that which has both therapeutic and prophylactic properties. We differ from the claim made by the 6 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others appellant and conclude that Mediker cannot be a - medicament having both therapeutic as well as prophylactic use and that Phenothrin used in Mediker cannot be used for in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention or any disease or disorder. At the best it is used for killing of hair lice.
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for rectification of mistake in the Appellate Board's order dated 06.10.2015 was opened for consideration before the Appellate Board. The appeal preferred by the State against the order dated 19.08.2013 in petitioner's entry tax case for the year 1999-2000 was decided by the Apex Court vide judgement dated 22.07.2016 and the Apex Court affirmed the Division Bench order and dismissed the appeal of the State specifically holding that "Mediker" which is used for anti lice treatment is a drug because of its medicinal effect and once it is a drug, it cannot be a shampoo. The petitioner therefore, immediately brought to the notice of the Appellate Board the said decision of the Apex Court as it had a direct bearing on the application for rectification pending before the Board. But the Appellate Board has committed an error in dismissing the application, utter disregard to the Apex Court's decision, which has a direct binding on the Appellate Board. He further submits that the Board has dismissed the application for rectification on technical ground that mistake of non-consideration of judgement of the Apex Court is not rectifiable under Section 71 of the M. P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & others vs. Marico Industries Ltd. (supra) being the law of the land and is binding to the Appellate Board, the Board has committed an error in not directing the taxing authorities. The rectification had to be done to make direction to the taxing authorities to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court, which is binding on all Courts/Tribunals in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
16. The Board had committed an error in holding that as per the provisions of Section 71, the scope of rectification is confined only to correction of arithmetical or clerical errors is also apparently erroneous because Section 71 7 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others also empowers the Board to rectify errors regarding omissions and non- consideration of a binding decision of jurisdictional Court amounts to omission and would entitle the Board to rectify its order and bring it in conformity with the binding decision. The order of rejection of application suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and prays that the impugned orders be quashed.
17. In the case of State of M.P. & others vs. Marico Industries Ltd. (supra), the dispute before the Appellate Board was imposition of Entry Tax on the products namely, Mediker and Starch (Revive). The stand of the petitioner before the Apex Court was that the entry tax imposed on the assessee on Mediker, which is meant for anti-lice treatment, was illegal being not permissible under any of the entries mentioned in Schedule II of the Entry Tax Act, 1976.
18. It is the admitted position that drugs are not covered under the Entry Tax Act and do not find any mention either in the Schedule I or Schedule II and are not liable to levy of entry tax. Section 3 of the Entry Tax Act deals with incidence of taxation. Section 3(1)(a) reads as follows :-
"There shall be levied an entry tax:
(a) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule II, into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein; and ........"
Schedule II, Entry 32, which has been sought to be used to justify the imposition of entry tax on Mediker, reads as follows :-
"Scents, perfumes, hair tonic, hair cream, hair shampoo, depilatories and cosmetics including face creams, snows, lipsticks, rouge and nail polish".
19. In respect of entry tax on Starch (Revive), the stand of the petitioner before the authorities was that it is not a chemical. It is not sold or used for that purpose. It is a starch manufactured by using Tapioca roots. In absence of any evidence by the Revenue that it is a chemical, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
20. In the present case, the petitioner was assessed for the commercial tax by order dated 29.04.2003 for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. Later on, 8 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others it was observed that for the period from 01.01.2000 to 31.03.2000, the sale of Mediker shampoo not being a medicinal preparation, was erroneously assessed @ 9.2% whereas, it should have been taxed @ 13.8% and, therefore, the assessment was re-opened under Section 28(1) as Schedule II was amended w.e.f. 01.01.2000 wherein Entry No.4 of Part-III was amended from 01.01.2000 and Entry No.41 in Part-III of Schedule II was amended w.e.f. 15.03.2000 wherein ".....hair shampoo...... including medicinal preparation thereof" was inserted thereby attracting higher rate of taxation.
21. The Appellate authority in its order dated 31.12.2007 observed that Schedule II was amended w.e.f. 01.01.2000 in which Entry No.4 of Part-III of Schedule II was amended from 01.01.2000 and Entry No.41 of Part-III of Schedule II was amended w.e.f. 15.03.2000 wherein ...... including medicinal preparation thereof.... was included. The inclusion of the entry meant that the shampoo Mediker in which medicinal element Phenothrin was included was rightly classified at a higher rate of taxation by the assessing officer and that after 01.01.2000 the product Mediker should be as per the revised entry and subject to taxation @ 13.8%.
22. In the petitioner's own case, as relied by the Counsel for the Revenue i.e. M. P. Commercial Tax Appellate Board in the case of Marico Industries Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others (supra), it was observed as follows :-
"Mediker is basically a medicinal product but is used as shampoo, however, its period for treatment is four weeks and the shampoo is not used generally for washing hair and therefore the principle of ejusdem generis is not applicable and in this sense it is not a cosmetic."
23. This conclusion was drawn on account of the Schedule II entry in the Entry Tax Act, which does not contain the words "including medicinal preparation thereof".
24. The Appellate Board upheld the order of the Appellate Authority and dismissed the second appeal. After dismissal, application for rectification has been filed under Section 4(A)(2) of the M. P. VAT Act, 2002.
25. Later on, the authority considering the fact that the relevant period is 9 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others much prior to 2002 and, therefore, the provisions of Section 71 of the Commercial Tax Act will be applicable and treating the said rectification application under Section 71 of the Act decided the matter.
26. Section 71 which deals with rectification of mistake reads as follows :-
71. Rectification of mistakes. - (1) The Commissioner may-
(i) On his own motion at any time within one calender year from the date of any order passed by him; or
(ii) On an application made by a dealer within one calender year from the date of receipt of such application, rectify such order for correcting any clerical or arithmetical mistake or any error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission ;
Provided that the Commissioner shall not entertain any application by the dealer unless it is made within one year from the date of the order sought to be rectified :
Provided further that no such rectification shall be made if it has the effect of enhancing the tax or reducing the amount of refund unless the Commissioner has given notice in writing to the dealer of his intention so to do and has allowed the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(2) Where on an application made by a dealer for the rectification of any order, the order is not rectified within the period specified in sub-section (1), the applicant shall be entitled to have the order rectified in accordance with his application and accordingly the Commissioner shall rectify the order, and where in proceedings initiated suo motu the order is not passed within the time specified in sub-section (1), the proceedings shall stand abated:
Provided that nothing herein shall preclude the Commissioner from exercising powers under any other provisions of this Act.
(3)(a) The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall apply to the rectification of a mistake in any order-
(i) passed by the [Appellate Board], or
(ii) passed by the appellate authority as they apply to the rectification of a mistake by the Commissioner.
(b) The [Appellate Board] may rectify any order passed by it-
(i) on its own motion at any time within one calender year from the date of passing of such order; and
(ii) on an application made by the dealer or the Commissioner, at any time within one calender year from the date of receipt of such application.10
W. P. No.21702/2017 & others (4) Where any such rectification has the effect of reducing the amount of tax, the Commissioner shall in the prescribed manner refund any amount due to the dealer.
(5) Where any such rectification has the effect of enhancing the amount of the tax or reducing the amount of the refund, the Commissioner shall recover the amount due from the dealer in the manner provided in Section 32.
27. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Board is empowered to rectify any order, if there is any clerical or arithmetical mistake or any error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission.
28. As per Section 71 of the Act, any clerical or arithmetical mistake or any error arising out therein from any accidental slip or omission made at any time can be corrected by the Board either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. The object under Section 71 is to provide a remedy for casual omission or negligence of ministerial officers of the Court in preparing order. As per Section 71, power to amend is uncontrolled when the Board is satisfied that there is an accidental mistake i.e., an accidental slip or omission. There cannot be reconsideration of merits of matter and sole object of provision is based on maxim actus curiae neminem gravbit means, an act of Court shall prejudice no man. A bare reading of Section 71 makes it clear that the power of the Board under the said provision is limited to rectification of clerical and arithmetical errors arising from any accidental slip or omission.
29. In the case in hand, the Board, after considering the matter in great detail, came to the conclusion that there is no accidental mistake i.e., any accidental slip or omission, which can be corrected under Section 71 and dismissed the application. Para-5 of the order dated 21.08.2017 is relevant, which reads as under :-
5- mijksDrkuqlkj rdZ lqus x, rFkk f}rh; vihy izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ik;k x;k fd & ¼1½ vihy cksMZ }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds lanHkZ esa izLrqr Hkwy lq/kkj vkosnu esa lquokbZ ds nkSjku izLrqr nLrkostksa] loksZPPk U;k;ky;@mPp U;k;ky; ds lanfHkZr fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karks ,ao izdj.k dh rF;kRed fLFkfr ds ifjizs{; esa leqfpr :i ls fopkj u djrs gq, fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk vfHkys[k ls Li"V Hkwy gksus dk mYys[k gSA ¼2½ vkosnd }kjk osV vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4&,¼2½ ds v/khu vkosnu fd;k x;k gS fdUrq fopkjk/khu vof/k okf.kT;d dj vf/kfu;e ls lacaf/kr gS rFkk blds laca/k 11 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others esa okf.kfT;d dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 71 ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSA blh ifjizs{; esa izLrqr vkosnu ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA ¼3½ okf.kfT;d dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 71 ds izko/kku vuqlkj =qfV fyfidh; ;k vadxf.krh; Lo:i dh gkssus ;k ,DlhMsaVy fLyi vFkok vkseh'ku ¼yksi½ gksus dh fLFkfr esa gh lq/kkj ;ksX; gSA vlaHkfor :i ls fcuk fdlh mnns'; ;k ea'kk ds ;fn dksbZ =qfV gks tkrh gS rks gh mls ,DlhMsVy fLyi ;k vkseh'ku ds vUrxZr ekuk tk ldrk gSA ¼4½ vihy cksMZ dh o`grihB }kjk esllZ fr:ifr LVkpZ ,aM dsfedy fyfeVsM ¼mijksDr½ rFkk ,lksfl,VsM lhesaV daiuh fyfeVsM ¼mijksDr½ ds fu.kZ;ks es ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkkjr cksu fey ¼2007½ 10 ,lVhts 563] v'kksd VsDlVkbZYl fyfeVsM ¼1961½ 3 ,lVhvkj 236] nsok esVy ikmMlZ izk-fy-
¼2008½ 12 ,lVhts 142 vkfn ds izdj.kksa esa fn, x, fu.kZ;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEukuqlkj fu.khZr fd;k x;k gS %& **/kkjk 71 ds vUrxZr =qfV dh O;k[;k lhfer gS] ijarq bls foLr`r :i ls ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd ckn ds mPprj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij =qfV ifjektZu ds uke ij vkns'k esa ifjorZu ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl izdj.k esa vkosnd ;g pkgrs gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ckn esa gq, vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij ;g eku fy;k tk, fd cksMZ ds lanfHkZr vkns'k esa =qfV gqbZ Fkh vkSj mldk ifjektZu dj fn;k tk, tks mijsDr U;k;n`"Vkrks ds izdk'k esa mfpr ugh gSA ;fn vkosnd dh izkFkZuk ekuh tkrh gS rks cksMZ ds vkns'k es ewyHkwr ifjorZu djuk gksxk vkSj ,d u;k vkns'k izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk,xk tks mijksDr foospuk ds izdk'k esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 71 dh ea'kk ds vuq:i ugh gksxkA** ¼5½ vkosnd }kjk ,sls fdlh fof'k"V [email protected]; rF; dk mYys[k ugh fd;k x;k gS tks lquokbZ ds nkSjku izLrqr fd, x, Fks ,oa ftUgsa vihy cksMZ }kjk fopkj es au ysrs gq, vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gks blds foifjr ikfjr vkns'k esa vkosnd dh vksj ls m)fjr fu.kZ;ksa ,oa izdj.k dh rF;kRed ds laca/k esa izdj.k esa rF;ksa] oS/kkfud fLFkfr ,oa fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa laca/k esa foLr`r :i ls foospuk djrs gq, fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS tks ,d lqfopkfjr fu.kZ; gSA ;fn vkosnd ds vkosnu vuqlkj vkns'k esa ifjorZu fd;k tkrk gS] rks vkns'k ewyHkwr ifjorZu djuk gksxk rFkk ;g vkns'k dk iqufoZyksdu ¼fjO;w½ gksxk] ftldk dksbZ izko/kku okf.kT;d dj vf/kfu;e esa ugh gSA bl laca/k esa Hkkjr cksu fey ¼mijksDr½] ,lhVhvks fo:) eDdM+ IykfLVd ,tsUlht ¼2011½ 47 Vh ,y Mh 489 ¼,l-lh-½ nsok esVy ikoMj ¼mijksDr½ izdk'k pan clar dqekj ¼mijksDr½ eFkqjkyky ckyfd'ku ¼mijksDr½ ,e-ih- dSi izk-fy- ¼mijksDr½ ,oa ykW;u cqd esU;qQDs pfjax daiuh ¼mijksDr½ vkfn ds fu.kZ; m)j.kh; gSA ¼6½ vkosnd dh vksj ls m)fjr fu.kZ;ksa ds rF; izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ls m)fjr fu.kZ; vkosnd ds izdj.k esa ykxw ugh gksrs gSA
30. On perusal of the aforesaid so also the nature of rectification, which was prayed before the Appellate Board, Bhopal, we are of the view that the scope of Section 71 is very limited. There was no clerical or arithmetical mistake or any error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and, therefore, the Board has rightly rejected the prayer and passed the order (Annexure-P/1).
31. For these reasons, no case to interfere with the order dated 21.08.2017 12 W. P. No.21702/2017 & others (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Appellate Board, as prayed is made out. All these writ petitions (W. P. No.21702/2017, W. P. No.21704/2017 and W. P. No.21705/2017) are accordingly, dismissed. Copy of this order be retained in the record of other connected petitions (W. P. No.21704/2017 and W. P. No.21705/2017) also. No costs.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
gp
Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod
Date: 2018.02.17 10:54:44 +05'30'