2007 (12) TMI 221 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of mistake - Held that - The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word apparent is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications. The High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the issue as to whether Aluminium powder can be regarded metal in primary form for the purpose of payment of tax. There is no need to adjudicate that aspect in view of the fact that the rectification done in purported exercise of Section 22 of the Act is clearly impermissible. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing Trade Tax Revision Case Nos. 1055 and 1070 of 1998 under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Trade Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis:

1. Factual Background and Assessments:
The appellant, referred to as the Assessee, was dealing with Aluminium powder initially treated as metal and taxed at 2.2%. The assessing officer rectified the assessment under Section 22 of the Act, considering a previous court decision that only primary metal falls under the entry. The First appellate authority set aside the assessments, but the High Court upheld the rectification under Section 22, leading to the appeal.

2. Contentions:
The appellant argued that Section 22 should not apply to debatable issues, while the respondent cited a previous court decision to support the application of Section 22 in this case.

3. Interpretation of Section 22:
Section 22 allows rectification of mistakes apparent on the record within three years. The mistake must be visible and not require lengthy reasoning. The power to rectify does not extend to revising or reviewing orders, and the mistake must be patent and not subject to debate.

4. Judicial Precedents:
The judgment cited various legal principles, distinguishing between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. It emphasized that rectification under Section 22 should not involve substituting the original order with a new one.

5. Application to the Present Case:
The Court found that the mistake in the present case was not apparent on the face of the record and did not warrant rectification under Section 22. It clarified that rectification should not reverse an order but correct a visible mistake without the need for complex arguments.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court's decision was deemed unsustainable, and the rectification under Section 22 was considered impermissible. The Court did not delve into the debate on whether Aluminium powder qualifies as "metal in primary form" for tax purposes, as the rectification itself was found to be unjustified.

In summary, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that rectification under Section 22 should address visible mistakes without involving complex legal debates or revisions of original orders.