Rectification on apparent factual error may include account books in the record and cannot be rejected for not being raised earlier.

Account books produced and relied on in assessment form part of the assessment record, and therefore may also be treated as part of the appellate or revisional record. A rectification provision like section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is not limited to mistakes of law; it can extend to factual errors that are apparent from the existing record. Relief cannot be refused merely because the point was not raised earlier in appeal or revision. Where the alleged mistake is disclosed by scrutiny of the record itself, the rectification application must be considered on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's account books formed part of the record for purposes of rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the alleged error in the return amounted to a mistake apparent on the face of the record and could be rectified under section 22.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's account books formed part of the record for purposes of rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The record of assessment includes the return and the material produced or considered in assessment proceedings. Where the assessee's account books were produced before the assessing authority and were used in comparing the return with the disclosed turnover, those account books became part of the assessment record, and consequently part of the appellate or revisional record as well.

Conclusion: The account books formed part of the record for the purposes of section 22.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged error in the return amounted to a mistake apparent on the face of the record and could be rectified under section 22.

Analysis: Section 22 is not confined to mistakes of law; it extends to factual mistakes also, provided they are apparent from the record. The provision does not require that the mistake must have been incapable of being noticed earlier, nor does it bar rectification merely because the point could have been raised in appeal or revision. If the mistake emerges from scrutiny of the existing record itself, it is rectifiable, and the revisional authority should examine the merits rather than refuse relief on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The matter was prima facie within section 22 and required reconsideration on merits.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to have the rectification application considered afresh, and the revisional order refusing to examine the alleged mistake could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A mistake apparent on the face of the record under a rectification provision may include a factual error evident from the existing assessment record, including material such as account books, and relief cannot be denied merely because the error was not raised at an earlier appellate or revisional stage.

---