Rectification limited to apparent record errors; challenge to classification and interest could not be pursued through that route.

Rectification under section 6(6)(a) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, meaning self-evident mistakes that can be corrected without reappraisal of facts or law. Where the grievance involves reconsideration of factual findings, legal conclusions, or matters on which two views are possible, rectification is unavailable. The challenge to the establishment's classification and the levy of interest required substantive reconsideration rather than correction of an obvious record error. The rectification applications were therefore not maintainable, and the petitioner was left to pursue any other remedy available in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification applications under section 6(6) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act were maintainable on the ground that the assessment and appellate orders disclosed errors apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The power of rectification under section 6(6)(a) is confined to correcting only errors apparent on the face of the record. Such an error must be self-evident and capable of being corrected without elaborate examination or reappraisal of the merits. Where the grievance requires reconsideration of factual findings or legal conclusions, or where two views are possible, the matter falls outside rectification jurisdiction. The challenge to the classification of the establishment and the levy of interest was found to be an assertion of illegality requiring substantive reconsideration, not correction of an obvious record error.

Conclusion: The rectification applications were not maintainable, and the petitioner was left to pursue any other remedy available in law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the impugned orders did not disclose rectifiable errors apparent on the face of the record.

---