Rectification for apparent tax error upheld where later notifications made de-oiled cake taxable and no merger arose from non-speaking SLP dismissal.

Later notifications withdrawing the exemption and making de-oiled cake taxable for the relevant assessment years rendered the original omission to levy tax a mistake apparent on the record, so rectification under the sales tax rectification provision was valid. The distinction between rectification and reassessment supported correction of the patent error in the assessment orders, and the challenge to the notices failed. A non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition on an earlier judgment did not amount to merger or a merits-based determination, so it did not prevent the authorities from applying the statutory notifications and relevant precedent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned notice under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for rectification of the assessment orders was valid on the ground that non-imposition of tax on de-oiled cake disclosed a mistake apparent on the record. (ii) Whether dismissal of the special leave petition against an earlier judgment prevented the authorities from taking a contrary view.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned notice under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for rectification of the assessment orders was valid on the ground that non-imposition of tax on de-oiled cake disclosed a mistake apparent on the record.

Analysis: The product had been exempted initially, but later notifications under Section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act withdrew the exemption and made oil cake liable to tax, including de-oiled cake. For the assessment years in question, the governing notification prescribed taxability, and the omission to levy tax in the original assessment orders was therefore a patent error. Such an error was held to be rectifiable under Section 22, and the distinction between Sections 21 and 22 supported rectification in this situation.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 22 was valid and the rectification was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether dismissal of the special leave petition against an earlier judgment prevented the authorities from taking a contrary view.

Analysis: The dismissal of a special leave petition without reasons does not amount to merger and does not operate as a decision on the merits of the legal issue. The earlier non-speaking dismissal, therefore, did not bar the authorities or the Court from applying the law on the basis of the statutory notifications and relevant precedent.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the special leave petition did not alter the legality of the impugned notices.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rectification notices failed because the assessments contained a rectifiable mistake and the later notifications governed the taxability of de-oiled cake.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later notification has withdrawn an exemption and rendered the commodity taxable for the relevant assessment years, omission to levy tax in the original assessment is a mistake apparent on the record and may be corrected in rectification proceedings; a non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition does not amount to merger or determination on merits.

---