Rectification jurisdiction cannot admit a new limitation plea; a mixed law-and-fact objection was barred at the later stage.

Rectification jurisdiction under section 21A is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to introduce a new limitation plea requiring fresh adjudication; the Tribunal was in rejecting the plea. A limitation objection treated as a mixed question of law and fact also could not be raised for the first time in writ or appellate proceedings when it had not been urged before the assessing authority or Tribunal. The court found no legal infirmity in the refusal to entertain the new plea.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a plea that the assessment was barred by limitation could be raised for the first time in a rectification application under section 21A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the limitation plea could be entertained in writ/appellate proceedings when it had not been raised before the assessing authority or the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether a plea that the assessment was barred by limitation could be raised for the first time in a rectification application under section 21A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The power of rectification is confined to correcting a mistake apparent from the record. A fresh plea not taken in the original appeal or in earlier rectification proceedings does not fall within that narrow scope. The newly raised limitation objection required fresh adjudication and was therefore outside the rectificatory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The plea could not be raised for the first time in rectification and the Tribunal was right in rejecting it.

Issue (ii): Whether the limitation plea could be entertained in writ/appellate proceedings when it had not been raised before the assessing authority or the Tribunal.

Analysis: Limitation in the circumstances was treated as a mixed question of law and fact. Such a plea, not having been urged before the lower authorities or in the earlier proceedings, could not be permitted to be raised at the High Court stage for the first time.

Conclusion: The limitation plea was not entertainable at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's refusal to entertain the new limitation plea, and the appeal was not admitted.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to introduce a new substantive plea, while a limitation objection involving disputed facts cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time at a later appellate stage.

---