Rectification under trade tax law: wrong statutory reference should not defeat relief where jurisdiction exists under the correct provision.

Section 30(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act confers a limited remedy linked to an eligibility certificate under section 4-A, and that power to set aside an assessment or appellate order lies with the assessing or appellate authority, not the Tribunal. However, where the real prayer is to align assessment orders with a subsequently granted eligibility certificate, a mistaken reference to section 30(3) does not defeat relief if the Tribunal otherwise has rectificatory power. The applications were therefore required to be treated as invoking section 22 and decided on merits, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal could entertain an application seeking relief in the light of an eligibility certificate under section 30(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the applications, though styled under section 30(3), ought to have been treated as applications under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and decided on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal could entertain an application seeking relief in the light of an eligibility certificate under section 30(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 30(3) gives a limited remedy to a dealer who has obtained an eligibility certificate under section 4-A, and the power to set aside the assessment or appellate order is conferred on the assessing or appellate authority. The Tribunal is not an appellate authority within the meaning of that provision, and the language of the section does not extend that specific power to the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 30(3) as such.

Issue (ii): Whether the applications, though styled under section 30(3), ought to have been treated as applications under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and decided on merits.

Analysis: The substance of the prayer was to bring the assessment orders in conformity with the subsequently granted eligibility certificate. Section 22 confers rectificatory power on the Tribunal and the High Court to correct mistakes apparent from the record, and a wrong mention of the statutory provision does not defeat a legitimate exercise of jurisdiction when the authority otherwise has power to grant the relief. The later eligibility certificate and the object of the beneficial exemption scheme justified consideration of the matter as one for rectification rather than a strict limitation-based rejection.

Conclusion: The applications should have been treated as applications under section 22 and decided on merits in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to decide the applications on merits by treating them as invoking rectificatory jurisdiction under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a beneficial statutory relief is substantively available and the forum has jurisdiction under the correct provision, a mistaken reference to another provision will not defeat the application, and the authority may treat it under the provision that truly confers the power to grant relief.

---