Rectification orders based on factual findings do not raise a referable question of law; delayed cross-objection dismissed.

A reference application was treated as maintainable and within limitation because it was effectively directed against the order on the miscellaneous rectification application. However, the Tribunal held that the refusal to rectify was based on factual findings, and that a debatable legal point or a matter requiring appraisal of evidence does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record; no referable question of law therefore arose and the statement of case was declined. The cross-objection was filed out of time, and no sufficient ground for condonation of delay was accepted, so it was dismissed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reference application was maintainable and within limitation in relation to the order passed on the miscellaneous application; (ii) whether any question of law arose from the order refusing rectification so as to justify drawing up a statement of case; (iii) whether the cross-objection was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the reference application was maintainable and within limitation in relation to the order passed on the miscellaneous application.

Analysis: The application, though misdescribed in one column, was treated as directed against the order on the miscellaneous application because the date of service corresponded to that order. The Tribunal held that a reference application could lie from an order passed on rectification of its appellate order, and that the reference was therefore not barred merely because it arose from a miscellaneous order.

Conclusion: The reference application was held to be maintainable and within limitation.

Issue (ii): whether any question of law arose from the order refusing rectification so as to justify drawing up a statement of case.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the impugned order rested on findings of fact drawn from the materials on record. It further held that a debatable point of law or a matter involving acceptance or appraisal of evidence does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record. On that footing, the refusal to rectify did not give rise to a referable question of law.

Conclusion: No referable question of law was held to arise, and the statement of case was declined.

Issue (iii): whether the cross-objection was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The cross-objection was filed beyond time and no sufficient justification for condonation of delay was accepted.

Conclusion: The cross-objection was held to be time-barred and dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The reference proceedings failed on merits because the impugned rectification order was treated as involving only factual determination and no question of law, while the revenue's cross-objection was not entertained for delay.

Ratio Decidendi: A debatable question of law, or a challenge requiring reappraisal of evidence, does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record; where the impugned decision is a finding of fact, no referable question of law arises for a statement of case.

---