Section 72 rectification cannot be used to reopen concluded proceedings for rehearing on merits.

The dispute arose from reassessment proceedings concerning the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999.

Durga Marketing and S.B. Trading Company challenged the departmental reassessment and demand before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal in Revision Application No. 25 of 2003 and Second Appeal No. 674 of 2003.

By order dated 6 May 2009, the Tribunal allowed the proceedings to the extent of restoring the assessee’s set-off claim under Rule 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970, including consequential interest relief.

Durga Marketing thereafter filed Rectification Application No. 107 of 2009 under Section 72 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, contending that six additional issues had not been decided.

The Tribunal allowed the application and restored the original revision proceedings by order dated 6 September 2010.

The Tribunal subsequently passed an order dated 15 July 2015, which became the subject of challenge in the present writ petitions.

The State also filed Rectification Application No. 11 of 2016 concerning deletion of penalty, but that application was rejected on 4 February 2016.

During the writ proceedings, Durga Marketing sought permission to withdraw its rectification application and to pursue an appropriate remedy against the original order dated 6 May 2009.

The State also sought liberty to challenge that original order, while Durga Marketing opposed such liberty in relation to issues decided in its favour.

Whether a rectification application under Section 72 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 could be used to seek rehearing or adjudication of issues allegedly left undecided in the original order, rather than correction of a mistake apparent from the record?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring the already-disposed-of Revision Application No. 25 of 2003 through a rectification proceeding?

Whether the orders dated 6 September 2010, 15 July 2015 and 4 February 2016 ought to be quashed, with liberty to the respective parties to challenge the original order dated 6 May 2009 through appropriate proceedings?

The Court applied Section 72 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, which permits rectification only of a mistake of fact apparent from the record in an order passed by the Commissioner or the Tribunal; it does not authorise a rehearing on merits or restoration of concluded proceedings to adjudicate issues allegedly omitted earlier.

The Court also recognised the underlying relevance of the assessee’s set-off claim under Rule 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970, which had been decided in the original order dated 6 May 2009.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court held that Durga Marketing’s rectification application did not identify an apparent error capable of correction under Section 72.

Instead, it sought a decision on six substantive issues, including disallowance of registered purchases, purchase tax, denial of set-off, penalty, interest and refund-related claims.

By allowing the application and restoring Revision Application No. 25 of 2003, the Tribunal effectively recalled an order that had already granted relief to Durga Marketing and reopened the matter for a merits-based reconsideration, which exceeded the limited scope of rectification jurisdiction.

In view of the parties’ agreement to withdraw the rectification proceedings and the procedural complications created by the Tribunal’s orders, the Court adopted an equitable course by setting aside the consequential orders while preserving the parties’ right to pursue appropriate remedies against the original order.

The respective parties were granted liberty to challenge the original Tribunal order dated 6 May 2009 before the appropriate forum.

Any such proceeding filed within three months was directed not to be rejected on the ground of delay and to be decided on merits.

All contentions were left open, and the Court expressly stated that it had not examined the merits of the dispute.