Rectification and reference limits under sales tax law: debatable issues and factual disputes cannot be reopened, and writ relief is constrained by an alternative remedy.

Rectification under the Bombay Sales Tax Act is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen debatable issues or revisit the merits of the original appellate decision; the Tribunal's refusal to rectify was therefore upheld. Applications for reference must raise referable questions of law, not disputes over factual findings or evidence appreciation, and the Tribunal was justified in declining reference. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Act also weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Tribunal's orders rejecting rectification and reference were sustained, and interference in writ jurisdiction was found unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the rectification applications under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the applications for reference under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the rectification applications under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen debatable questions or to challenge the merits of the original appellate decision. The grounds urged in rectification did not disclose any patent error requiring no debate, but sought reconsideration of issues already decided or capable of being urged before a higher forum. The Tribunal therefore acted within the limited scope of its rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification applications was justified and is sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the applications for reference under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The questions proposed in the reference applications did not give rise to referable questions of law, as they were largely directed against factual findings, appreciation of evidence, and alleged inconsistency in earlier orders. The Tribunal's refusal to make a reference was therefore justified. In any event, the statute provided an alternative remedy by way of a Sales Tax Application under the proviso to Section 61(1), and that statutory remedy weighed against interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The rejection of the reference applications was justified and no writ interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for interference under Article 226, and the Tribunal's orders declining rectification and reference were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be invoked to reopen debatable issues or merits, and writ interference is ordinarily unwarranted where an effective statutory remedy is available against refusal to make a reference.

---