Rectification power cannot be used to raise a new refund plea or rewrite an earlier tax decision.

Rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is limited to correcting a mistake apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a review or to substitute a fresh view on law or facts. A new plea that tax had been refunded to purchasers through credit vouchers could not be introduced for the first time in rectification proceedings when it had not been urged earlier before the authorities or the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore could not alter its earlier rejection of the refund claim on a debatable issue, and the rectification order was beyond the scope of section 22.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could entertain a rectification application under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 to introduce a new ground for refund and thereby alter its earlier decision on the claim for refund of tax.

Analysis: The power of rectification under section 22 is confined to correcting a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It does not extend to review or substitution of the original decision, and an error requiring argument, investigation, or a fresh view on law or facts is not a rectifiable mistake. The earlier appellate order had already considered and rejected the refund claim on the grounds then urged. The rectification application, however, rested on an altogether new plea that the tax had been refunded to purchasers through credit vouchers, a contention not raised earlier before the authorities or the Tribunal. Such a new contention could not be introduced in rectification proceedings, and the Tribunal could not change its conclusion on a debatable issue under the guise of rectification.

Conclusion: The rectification order was beyond the scope of section 22 and could not be sustained. The claim for refund was rightly rejected in the revision proceedings.

---