2002 (10) TMI 804 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for rectification under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority under Section 22.
3. Scope of rectification under Section 22.
4. Interpretation of mistake apparent on the face of the record.
5. Comparison with previous judgments on rectification under Section 22.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an application for rectification under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The applicant sought to recall/rectify an order dated 21st August, 1997, passed by the Court in a revision case where the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal was set aside. The application specifically aimed at recalling the said order.

2. The Court examined the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority under Section 22, emphasizing that rectification must be based on a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It clarified that the provision does not allow rectification of errors of judgment but only mistakes that are evident upon a glance at the record. The Court referred to Concrete Spun Pipe Works v. The Sales Tax Officer to establish the limited scope of rectification under Section 22.

3. The judgment elaborated on the scope of rectification under Section 22, highlighting that the Assessing Authority cannot rectify errors that require elaborate arguments on facts or law. It emphasized that the mistake to be rectified must be clear on the face of the record and not subject to prolonged debate on the merits of the issue. The Court stressed that rectification under Section 22 is not meant to correct errors of judgment but only factual mistakes.

4. Discussing the interpretation of a mistake apparent on the face of the record, the Court cited previous judgments to support its position. It reiterated that the mistake to be rectified should be immediately noticeable from the record without the need for extensive analysis or debate. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between errors of judgment and mistakes that are evident on a cursory review of the record.

5. In comparing the present case with past judgments, the Court reiterated that Section 22 of the Act is limited to rectifying mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record. It emphasized that the provision does not allow for rectification or modification based on errors of judgment or subsequent differing opinions. The Court dismissed the rectification application, stating that no correctable error was found in the previous adjudication.