Rectification jurisdiction cannot decide a fresh deduction claim requiring factual inquiry under the trade tax regime.

A rectification proceeding under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is confined to correcting mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to entertain a fresh deduction claim under section 3F(2)(b)(i) based on alleged inter-State sales under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Because that claim was not raised in the original assessment and its determination would require examination of the nature of the transactions and factual inquiry, it falls outside the limited scope of rectification jurisdiction. An earlier appellate remand did not specifically direct adjudication of that deduction claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim for deduction under section 3F(2)(b)(i) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, on the ground that the goods were covered by sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, could be examined in proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The claim for deduction had not been raised in the original assessment proceedings. The rectification order under section 22 only enhanced the rate of tax, and the power under that provision is confined to correcting a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Determining whether the transactions were inter-State sales attracting sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 required examination of the nature of the transactions and factual inquiry. Such an exercise goes beyond the limited scope of rectification proceedings and cannot be undertaken where the issue was not already adjudicated in the original assessment. The earlier appellate remand did not contain a specific direction requiring adjudication of this deduction claim.

Conclusion: The deduction claim was not entertainable in proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, and the rejection of the assessee's contention was .

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected because the disputed deduction involved an issue requiring factual determination and did not fall within the limited rectification jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification provision permitting correction of only apparent mistakes cannot be used to decide a fresh claim that depends on factual investigation and was not part of the original assessment.

---