JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the endorsement dated 9.2.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent refusing to rectify/reopen the assessment order dated 29.2.2020. 2. Petitioner-assessee claims to be engaged in the business of export of barites and other minerals outside India. It filed CST return for turnover of Rs. 53,69,56,929/- with ‘NIL’ tax liability. On 13.8.2019 a show-cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent upon the petitioner-assessee proposing to levy tax at the rate of Rs. 2,68,47,846/- on the premise the assessee had not submitted requisite Forms ‘H’ with regard to inter-state sale for exports covered under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act (for short ‘the CST Act’). Thereafter, notice for personal hearing was also issued upon the petitioner-assessee, but it not participated in the hearing. Accordingly, assessment order dated 29.2.2020 based on best judgment method was passed imposing the aforesaid tax liability. The order was sent to the assessee in June, 2020 but, the petitioner-assessee did not pay the said tax. As a result recovery proceedings were initiated against it. At that stage, the petitioner-assessee made an application before the 2nd respondent seeking rectification/reopening of the assessment. By the impugned endorsement dated 9.2.2021 such prayer was turned down, which has been assailed before us. 3. Sri Balaji, learned Counsel, representing Sri Avinash Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that his client was unable to participate in the assessment as the notice had not been communicated to the management by the accountant concerned. He further submits due to the prevailing pandemic, steps could not be taken against the order of assessment. He also submits that the assessing officer had wholly misdirected himself by referring to Section 5(3) of the CST Act with regard to the exports directly affected by the petitioner-assessee, which is covered under Section 5(1) of the said Act. There is no necessity to submit ‘H’ declaration forms with regard to direct exports exempt under Section 5(1) of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer erred in law in imposing the tax liability on the ground of non-filing of ‘H’ declaration forms. 4. On the other hand, the shipping bill of export, bill of lading, packing list and bank realization annexed to the rectification application would show that the sales were wholly exempt as direct exports under Section 5(1) of the CST Act. 4. On the other hand, the shipping bill of export, bill of lading, packing list and bank realization annexed to the rectification application would show that the sales were wholly exempt as direct exports under Section 5(1) of the CST Act. Such an error being apparent on the face of record, it was incumbent on the part of the 2nd respondent, to reopen the assessment. 5. In rebuttal, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submits that Rule 60 of the A.P. Value Added Tax Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) permit the authority to rectify clerical and arithmetical mistakes only. Neither in the decision cited in the rectification application nor in any of the decisions referred to therein, there is any declaration of law that Rule 60 of the Rules permits reopening of assessment for the purpose of consideration of documents not submitted by the assessee. He further submits that the order is an appealable one. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. We have considered the materials on record, particularly, the documents submitted alongwith the rectification application filed by the petitioner-assessee. 7. The said documents prima facie show that the petitioner-assessee was a direct exporter and not a dealer, whose prior sale would be exempt from tax under Section 5(3) of the CST Act. However, such issue ought to have been brought to the notice of the assessing officer in the first instance when notice was served upon the petitioner-assessee. Explanation given by the petitioner-assessee for its failure to do so, namely, non-communication between the accountant and the management of the petitioner-assessee is not very convincing. Subsequent delay in taking steps due to the covid pandemic however merits consideration. 8. Rule 60 of the Rules read as follows: 60. Correction of Errors - Any authority prescribed, appellate or revising authority may at any time within four years from the date of any order passed by him rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record. No such rectification which has the effect of enhancing the tax liability or penalty shall be made unless a notice is given to the person concerned to provide him with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A plain reading of the aforesaid rule show the nature of jurisdiction conferred on the authority by the said rule is for correction of arithmetical and clerical errors apparent on the face of the record only. A plain reading of the aforesaid rule show the nature of jurisdiction conferred on the authority by the said rule is for correction of arithmetical and clerical errors apparent on the face of the record only. The rule does not give power to the authority to reopen the assessment proceedings for the purpose of considering additional materials submitted by the assessee after closure of the assessment proceedings. The words ‘arithmetical mistake’ is an error in calculation and a ‘clerical mistake’ is a mistake in writing or typing. It cannot encompass within its ambit a failure to consider relevant documents which were not before the authority itself. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and Another, AIR 1966 SC 1047 , the Apex Court while interpreting a similar provision, namely, Rule 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, held as follows: “The material part of Rule 83 of the said rules reads: “The Commissioner of Sales Tax may at any time correct any arithmetical or clerical mistakes or any error apparent on the face of the record arising or occurring from accidental slip or omission in an order passed by him, or it.” Rule 83 provides a summary remedy within a narrow compass. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner under this rule is limited and is confined only to the correction of mistakes or omissions mentioned therein. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made There is another qualification namely, such an error shall be apparent on the face of the record, that is to say, it is not an error which depends for its discovery, on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. The accidental slip or omission is an accidental slip or omission made by the Court. The obvious instance is a slip or omission to embody in the order something which the Court in fact ordered to be done. This is sometimes described as a decretal order not being in accordance with the judgment. But the slip or omission may be attributed to the Judge himself. He may say something or omit to say something which he did not intend to say or omit. This is sometimes described as a decretal order not being in accordance with the judgment. But the slip or omission may be attributed to the Judge himself. He may say something or omit to say something which he did not intend to say or omit. This is described as a slip or omission in the judgment itself. The cause for such a slip or omission may be the Judge’s inadvertence or the Advocate’s mistake. But, however wide the said expressions are construed, they cannot countenance are argument on merits on questions of fact or law, or permit a party to raise new arguments which he has not advanced at the first instance.” (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid ratio, therefore, leaves no doubt that a similar Rule, namely, Rule 60 of the Rules cannot be utilized for permitting the assessee to submit additional papers or raise an argument which it has not raised in the first instance. 9. Although in M/s. Vyplavi Granites vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Ongole, W.P. No. 14638 of 2019, decided on 13.10.2019 (APHC), the Bench while recording submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 60 of the Rules, there is no declaration of law in the said decision that reopening of assessment proceedings may be permitted by taking recourse to such provision On the other hand, the Bench relying on a number of earlier decisions of this Court permitted reopening of proceedings for consideration of ‘C’ and ‘F’ declaration forms which had been subsequently brought on record. However, in none of those earlier decisions, source of such power is traceable to Rule 60 of the rules Hence, we are of the opinion that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not authorities for the proposition that Rule 60 permits rectification of assessment orders on the basis of additional documents subsequently filed. Thus, we hold there was no error in the order passed by the 2nd respondent refusing the rectification application filed under Rule 60 of the rules. 10. However, we note that the assessment order was passed on 29.2.2020 and the country went into lockdown from 15.3.2020. As a consequence, the petitioner-assessee has not been able to challenge the order by filing a statutory appeal. 11. 10. However, we note that the assessment order was passed on 29.2.2020 and the country went into lockdown from 15.3.2020. As a consequence, the petitioner-assessee has not been able to challenge the order by filing a statutory appeal. 11. The period of limitation for instituting proceedings including appellate proceedings has been extended by the Apex Court from time to time and lastly by order dated 27.4.2021. In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Misc. Application No. 665/2021 in SMW (C) No. 3/2020, on the file of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the period of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, has been extended till further orders Under such circumstances, we are inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 before the appellate authority against the assessment order dated 29.2.2020 within six weeks from date subject to compliance of all formalities including deposit of 12.5% of the difference of tax liability imposed upon the petitioner by the said assessment order. In the event the appeal is filed in the manner as aforesaid, the recovery proceedings with regard to disputed demand shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all issues including furnishing additional documents relied upon by it in the rectification application as well as the writ petition and the appellate authority after considering the same and upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall dispose of the appeal within three months of its admission in accordance with law. 12. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.