2020 (1) TMI 750 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of revision - rectification of mistake - wrong finding has been given in the order in the appeal which is already on the record of the Trade Tax Tribunal - Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act - limited scope of Tribunal u/s 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act - evidence on record but ignored and not considered under the judgment. HELD THAT - The scope of Section 22 of the Act, 1948 is limited and the same is attracted only when the applicant is able to demonstrate that there is error apparent on the face of record, requiring rectification. If an error is discovered after dwelling deep in the matter and after debating, then such a error would not amount to error apparent on the face of record and in fact would amount to review of the order, which cannot be done under the garb of an application under Section 22 of the Act, 1948. The rectification as sought by the revisionist, does not amount to error apparent on the face of record, rather it seeks re-examination of the entire issue by dwelling into various transactions and books of account which is not the purport and effect of exercising power under Section 22 of the Act, 1948. There are no merits in the revision and the revision is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for rectification of mistake rejected by Trade Tax Tribunal.
2. Scope of Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for rectification of mistake.

Analysis:
1. The revisionist, a firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of rice, applied for exemption from trade tax on the sale of rice for the assessment year 1989-90. The Divisional Level Committee rejected the application on the ground that two electric motors were not purchased from a registered dealer. Despite the revisionist's appeals and directions from the Tribunal, the issue persisted. Subsequently, the revisionist filed an application under Section 22 of the Act for rectification of mistake, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's scope for rectification under Section 22 is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that seeking a re-examination of the entire issue through detailed transactions and account books does not fall within the purview of Section 22. The Court dismissed the revision, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

2. The High Court addressed the substantial questions of law raised in the revision. The first question pertained to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 22 despite a wrong finding in the appeal order already on record. The second question questioned the Tribunal's rejection based on the limited scope of Section 22, despite evidence on record not being considered in the previous judgment. The Court held that the Tribunal had considered the revisionist's contentions and directions from the Court, emphasizing that Section 22 is not meant for a review of the order but for correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. It was concluded that the rectification sought by the revisionist did not meet the criteria of an error apparent on the face of the record, leading to the dismissal of the revision in favor of the revenue and against the revisionist.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural history, legal arguments, and the Court's reasoning behind dismissing the revision based on the limited scope of rectification under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.