Retrospective validating amendment and appellate finality barred reopening of demand outside the statutory rectification route.

The appellate order superseded the original assessment, so the assessing authority could not reopen or revise the demand by disregarding that appellate decision. The validating amendment operated retrospectively, and the statutory explanation brought the matter within the scope of a mistake apparent from the record. Such error could be corrected only through the statutory rectification mechanism, not by an unauthorised attempt to revisit the appellate order. On that basis, no referable question of law arose and the request for a direction to state the case was rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue was rightly refused to be directed to state the case and refer the question of law arising from its order, and whether the assessing authority could reopen the demand after the appellate order in the light of the validating amendment.

Analysis: The appellate order had superseded the original assessment order, so the assessing authority could not, on its own, revise or rectify the matter by ignoring the order of the appellate authority. The validating amendment operated retrospectively and, by virtue of the statutory explanation introduced by the amending Act, the situation fell within the category of a mistake apparent from the record. Such a mistake could be corrected only by resort to the statutory rectification provision, not by an attempt to revise the appellate order without jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the Board's view that the demand raised by the assessing authority could not stand was correct, and no referable question of law arose.

Conclusion: The application for direction to state the case and refer the question of law was not maintainable and was rejected.

---