Rectification for apparent mistake survives prior taxability ruling, but only when the assessment record itself shows the error.

Section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 does not, by itself, bar rectification under section 62 where the assessment record reveals a patent mistake, because rectification operates independently of appellate or revisional remedies. A mistake apparent from the record may be legal or factual, but it must be clear on the existing assessment material and not depend on fresh evidence or extended argument. On the facts described, the assessment record did not contain evidence needed to classify the engines as agricultural machinery or to show sales to agriculturists, so no apparent mistake was established on that record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 barred rectification under section 62 of an assessment order when the Commissioner had earlier determined the same taxability question under section 52; (ii) whether the assessment order contained a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification under section 62.

Issue (i): Whether section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 barred rectification under section 62 of an assessment order when the Commissioner had earlier determined the same taxability question under section 52.

Analysis: Section 52(3) prevents a question already determined in proceedings other than section 52 from being re-agitated under section 52, and preserves appeal or revision as the remedy against such prior determination. It does not, by its language or scheme, exclude the statutory power of rectification under section 62 where the assessment record discloses a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification power operates on a different footing from appellate or revisional jurisdiction and is exercised by the same officer who passed the original order. Accordingly, the earlier determination under section 52 did not create any statutory bar to the maintainability of rectification under section 62.

Conclusion: The bar under section 52 did not defeat the rectification application; this issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order contained a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification under section 62.

Analysis: A mistake apparent from the record may be one of law or fact, but it must be clear and patent and not one requiring long-drawn argument or fresh evidence. The assessment proceedings contained no evidence to show that the engines were agricultural machinery or that they were sold to agriculturists, whereas such evidence had been produced only in the later determination proceedings under section 52. Since the assessment had proceeded on the footing that the sales fell under the residuary entry, and the factual basis necessary to bring the goods within the specific entry was absent from that record, no apparent error on the face of the assessment record was established.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown on the assessment record; this issue was answered against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of with the first question answered for the department and the second for the assessee, resulting in a mixed outcome on the legality of rectification and the existence of an apparent mistake.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under section 62 lies only for a patent mistake apparent from the assessment record, and an earlier determination on a similar question under section 52 does not by itself bar rectification, though facts not appearing in the assessment record cannot be supplied later to establish such a mistake.

---