Rectification cannot reopen disputed facts; fresh evidence was impermissible and a jurisdiction plea failed without factual foundation.

Rectification under section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and could not be used to reopen disputed facts or admit fresh evidence. The Tribunal's refusal to entertain rectification applications was therefore upheld, because Regulation 17 of the Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal Regulations, 1960 applied to appellate or reference proceedings and not to rectification proceedings. The assessee's alternative plea that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction also failed, since it depended on an unrecorded factual finding that the assessee merely served, and did not sell, eatables outside the premises. The rectification applications were held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could entertain rectification applications under section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 by reopening disputed facts and admitting fresh evidence, and whether the assessee's alternative plea of lack of jurisdiction could succeed without a prior finding that it only served and did not sell eatables.

Analysis: Rectification under section 62 lies only for a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Where the question depends upon investigation of further facts, it is not a matter of rectification. The claimed applicability of the Supreme Court decision could arise only after a factual finding that the assessee merely served eatables and did not sell them outside the premises, but no such issue or finding existed in the assessment or appellate orders. Regulation 17 of the Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal Regulations, 1960, which permits admission of fresh evidence in appropriate appellate or reference proceedings, had no application to rectification proceedings under section 62. The plea of absolute lack of jurisdiction also failed for the same reason, because it was contingent upon a factual finding that had never been recorded.

Conclusion: The rectification applications were not maintainable, the Tribunal did not act wrongly in refusing fresh evidence, and the plea of lack of jurisdiction was rejected.

---