Rectification cannot rest on later case law when the original assessment was a conscious decision.

Rectification under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 is limited to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. A considered assessment order does not become erroneous merely because a later judgment adopts a different view on taxability. A subsequent judicial pronouncement cannot, by itself, transform a conscious assessment into an apparent error, particularly where no binding authority was ignored when the assessment was made. On that basis, use of the later judgment to reopen the assessment was held to be beyond the scope of Section 22 and outside the Assessing Authority's jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a subsequent judgment of the Court taking a different view on taxability can justify rectification of an assessment order under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Rectification under Section 22 is confined to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. An order made after conscious application of mind is not a mistake merely because a later decision takes a different view. A subsequent judicial view cannot convert a considered assessment into an apparent error, especially where no binding authority was ignored at the time of the original assessment.

Conclusion: The subsequent judgment could not be used to invoke Section 22 for revising the assessment, and the rectification made by the Assessing Authority was beyond jurisdiction.

---