Rectification for mistake apparent on record applies where a tribunal departs from binding High Court interpretation.

The expression "person affected" under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was construed broadly, so the Assessing Authority could maintain a rectification application as a person interested in correct assessment and recovery of tax; the application was therefore maintainable. A tribunal order that departed from a binding High Court interpretation on a directly covered point was held to disclose a mistake of law apparent on the face of the record, and the rectification power was wide enough to correct it; the rectification order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Assessing Authority was a person affected so as to maintain an application for rectification under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948; (ii) whether the Tribunal's order dated 12 August 1975 suffered from a mistake of law apparent on the face of the record because it was contrary to the binding interpretation earlier laid down on the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Authority was a person affected so as to maintain an application for rectification under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The expression "person affected" was construed broadly. The Assessing Authority was treated as a person interested in correct assessment and recovery of tax within jurisdiction. The power of rectification could be exercised on the authority's own motion, and the source which set the process in motion was immaterial. The application for rectification was therefore not invalid merely because it was moved by the State through the Assessing Authority.

Conclusion: The application for rectification was maintainable and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's order dated 12 August 1975 suffered from a mistake of law apparent on the face of the record because it was contrary to the binding interpretation earlier laid down on the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The earlier binding decision had construed the second proviso as operating in all the contingencies covered by the provision, whereas the Tribunal had confined it only to one contingency. A failure to follow a binding High Court decision, where the point was directly covered, amounted to a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification jurisdiction under section 21-A was wide enough to correct such error.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order contained a rectifiable mistake of law apparent on the record and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered against the assessee and the rectification order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of a taxing authority or tribunal that departs from a binding High Court ruling on a directly covered point contains a mistake apparent from the record and may be rectified under the statutory power of rectification; the expression "person affected" is to be construed broadly for that purpose.

---