Rectification of apparent error under VAT law required reconsideration of dealer status and fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal's refusal to rectify its earlier order was unsustainable because it had proceeded under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act instead of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, creating an apparent mistake on the face of the record. The real issue, whether a petitioner running a medical store could be treated as a dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, had not been examined. The earlier appellate order was therefore set aside, and the matter was directed to be decided afresh on merits under the correct statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting rectification of an obvious mistake in the earlier order and whether the matter had to be reconsidered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The order under challenge showed that the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, though the dispute was required to be examined under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. This was an apparent mistake on the face of the record. Since the earlier decision had not addressed the real question whether the petitioner running a medical store could be treated as a dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the Tribunal ought to have corrected the error and restored the appeal for decision on merits.

Conclusion: The rejection of rectification was unsustainable, and the earlier appellate order was set aside with a direction to decide the appeal afresh under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

---