with the bill, the declaration form ST-18A was not found along with the goods. Counsel for the revenue contends that the Tax Board in the impugned order dated. 19/01/2011, on the same material and same facts, has reviewed the order dt.27/11/2007, after re-apprising or reviewing the findings given in its own earlier order and has reversed the finding arrived at by the Tax Board in its impugned order dated 19/01/2011. She contends that the Tax Board, in the impugned order, ought not to have reviewed the judgment/order when it, in its earlier order, had categorically, on the same facts and material, came to the conclusion of sustaining the penalty, reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer. She further contends that no occasion arose for passing of the impugned order and there is no mistake apparent u/s 33 by which the order could have been rectified. She contends that in the garb of the rectification order, by the impugned order, the Tax Board has totally reviewed its earlier view which is unjustified, She contends that the scope of rectification u/s 33 is limited and only the mistake apparent on the face of record or clerical or minor errors, can be rectified u/s 33. She relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Makkad Plastic Agencies: JT 2011 (4) SC 203.
