Rectification for apparent record mistake upheld, while a trivial defect in Form C did not defeat concessional tax treatment.

Rectification under the U.P. Trade Tax Act was upheld where the absence of Form C coverage for part of the turnover was apparent from the record and did not require detailed inquiry; the dealer was therefore liable for differential tax on the uncovered turnover. A separate defect in C Form No. 72714 was treated as merely formal because the amount was supported by an annexed sheet and the substantive entitlement to concessional rate was not shown to be affected. The concessional rate could not be denied on that basis, though relief remained limited to the uncovered turnover.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be invoked where the dealer was not covered by form C to the extent of Rs. 7,871.70 and the assessing authority withdrew the concessional rate of tax; (ii) whether a defect in C form No. 72714, namely omission of the amount in the form though supported by a separate sheet, justified denial of the concessional rate.

Issue (i): whether rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be invoked where the dealer was not covered by form C to the extent of Rs. 7,871.70 and the assessing authority withdrew the concessional rate of tax.

Analysis: Sections 21 and 22 operate in different fields, and the availability of reassessment does not exclude rectification if the conditions of section 22 are satisfied. A mistake can be rectified under section 22 when it is apparent from the record and does not require a long drawn process of reasoning. Here, the absence of form C for the amount of Rs. 7,871.70 was evident from the record, and no explanation was furnished by the dealer to dispute the shortfall.

Conclusion: The rectification under section 22 was valid and the dealer was liable to pay differential tax on Rs. 7,871.70.

Issue (ii): whether a defect in C form No. 72714, namely omission of the amount in the form though supported by a separate sheet, justified denial of the concessional rate.

Analysis: The defect in the form was found to be a trivial one, and the explanation that the figure was mentioned in an annexed sheet was not adversely dealt with by the assessing authority. A mere formal defect in the declaration form, when the substantive entitlement is not shown to be affected, does not warrant denial of the concessional rate, particularly where the matter is old and remand would serve no useful purpose.

Conclusion: The concessional rate of tax could not be denied on the basis of the defect in C form No. 72714.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of the uncovered turnover of Rs. 7,871.70, while the challenge regarding C form No. 72714 failed, leaving the overall relief in favour of the Revenue in part only.

Ratio Decidendi: A mistake apparent from the record may be rectified under the rectification provision even if reassessment is also theoretically possible, and a trivial defect in a declaration form will not defeat concessional tax treatment where the substantive claim remains unaffected.

---