Rectification for apparent mistake upheld where correction was made within time and no prejudice from short notice was shown.

Rectification under the assessment law is confined to patent mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit re-argument on the merits; on the facts, the original assessment had proceeded under a misapprehension later clarified by subsequent rulings, so rectification was competent. Limitation was held to run from the actual making of the rectification-writing, signing and incorporation in the assessment record within the statutory period-and not from later communication to the assessee, so the rectification was in time. A short notice did not vitiate the order because the assessee was heard and no prejudice from want of fair opportunity was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessment could be rectified under the rectification power for a mistake apparent on the face of the record; (ii) whether the rectification was barred by limitation because communication to the assessee occurred after the three-year period; (iii) whether the impugned rectification was vitiated for want of adequate opportunity.

Issue (i): whether the assessment could be rectified under the rectification power for a mistake apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The rectification power was confined to mistakes apparent from the record and did not permit re-argument on the merits. A patent error was found because the original assessment had proceeded on an earlier decision that had been applied under a misapprehension, although the dealer was admittedly registered and later rulings had clarified the correct position. The error was not one requiring prolonged debate or elaborate reasoning for its discovery.

Conclusion: The mistake was a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and rectification was competent.

Issue (ii): whether the rectification was barred by limitation because communication to the assessee occurred after the three-year period.

Analysis: For the purpose of the rectification provision, the relevant act was the actual making of the rectification, namely the writing, signing, and incorporation of the rectification in the assessment record within the statutory period. The provision did not create a limitation for service of communication of the rectification order, and the case law relating to awards or administrative orders did not control the statutory scheme governing rectification of assessments.

Conclusion: The rectification was within time and was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether the impugned rectification was vitiated for want of adequate opportunity.

Analysis: Although the notice period was short, the assessee was heard and was able to place its objections before the authority and again before the Court. No prejudice was shown from the timing of notice, and the grievance did not establish a denial of fair hearing sufficient to invalidate the order.

Conclusion: The order was not vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The rectification order was upheld and the writ petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification provision may be invoked to correct a patent mistake apparent from the record, and the rectification is complete when the correction is actually made within the statutory period; subsequent communication does not control limitation where the statute does not so provide.

---