Rectification within limitation under trade tax law prevails, while a retrospectively validated levy remains enforceable.

A rectification application filed within three years under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act had to be treated under that provision alone, and not as a review application under section 17(2) or a suo motu rectification under section 17(3); rejection as time-barred was therefore erroneous. The levy under section 3-AAAA was also legally sustainable because the goods were purchased from unregistered dealers, not resold in the same form and condition, and the provision had been retrospectively restored by validating amendment after the earlier invalidation was overruled. The rectification order and restored tax levy were accordingly upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, filed within three years from the date of the order, was governed by section 17(3) of Act No. 8 of 1992 or only by section 22; and (ii) whether the levy of tax under section 3-AAAA, as restored by Act No. 8 of 1992 and upheld by the Supreme Court, could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether an application for rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, filed within three years from the date of the order, was governed by section 17(3) of Act No. 8 of 1992 or only by section 22.

Analysis: Section 22 permits rectification of a mistake apparent on the record within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified, and where the application is filed within that period it may be disposed of beyond that period. Section 17(2) concerns review applications under the validating amendment, while section 17(3) applies to suo motu rectification by the authority in consequence of the amendment. The applications in question were applications under section 22 and were filed within the prescribed period. Treating them as review applications under section 17(2) and rejecting them as time-barred was therefore a patent error.

Conclusion: The rectification applications were maintainable under section 22 and were not barred by limitation; section 17(3) had no application.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of tax under section 3-AAAA, as restored by Act No. 8 of 1992 and upheld by the Supreme Court, could be sustained.

Analysis: The goods were purchased from unregistered dealers and were not resold in the same form and condition. Section 3-AAAA applied on the facts. The earlier view striking down the provision had already been overruled, and the validating amendment had reintroduced the provision retrospectively. In that situation, the tax levy founded on section 3-AAAA was legally supportable and the earlier deletion of the levy could be corrected by rectification.

Conclusion: The levy under section 3-AAAA was rightly restored and sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed because the rectification order was within the scope of section 22 and the tax levy under the validated provision remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application filed within the limitation prescribed by section 22 must be governed by that provision alone, and where a statutory levy is retrospectively validated and upheld, an order based on the earlier invalidation may be rectified to give effect to the valid law.

---