Rectification jurisdiction limited to apparent record errors, not disputed facts, under sales tax law.

Rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is limited to mistakes apparent on the record and cannot be used to determine disputed questions of fact. Whether the date of hearing was the first hearing date and whether the assessee was required to produce books of account on that date were contested factual matters, not obvious record errors. The rectification application was therefore rightly rejected, and no relief was available under section 22.

---

---

Issues: Whether a rectification application under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be maintained for deciding disputed questions of fact as to the first date of hearing and the assessee's obligation to produce books of account on that date.

Analysis: The scope of section 22 is confined to correcting mistakes apparent on the record. It does not permit enquiry into controversial or disputed factual matters. The questions whether 12 September 1979 was the first date of hearing and whether the assessee was bound to produce the books of account on that date involved contested facts and could not be resolved in rectification proceedings.

Conclusion: The rectification application was rightly rejected, and the assessee was not entitled to relief under section 22.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected because the alleged error did not constitute a mistake apparent on the record and required adjudication of disputed facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction is limited to obvious errors apparent from the record and cannot be used to decide disputed questions of fact.

---