Rectification of reassessment and fair hearing: apparent record error may be corrected, and disclosed materials can satisfy natural justice.

Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is confined to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit review; an inadvertent withdrawal of a composite reassessment notice can be rectified where the record shows the withdrawal was based on omission to notice separate Central reassessment material, and the reassessment may then proceed. On natural justice, non-supply of a compilation described as an SIB report does not by itself vitiate reassessment where the assessee was otherwise informed of the factual basis, relevant correspondence and documentary material, and the proceedings rested on materials already disclosed; refusal of cross-examination also does not invalidate the reassessment on those facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order rectifying the earlier withdrawal of reassessment notices and proceeding with reassessment was within the scope of section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948; (ii) whether non-supply of the SIB report and refusal to permit cross-examination vitiated the reassessment on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): whether the order rectifying the earlier withdrawal of reassessment notices and proceeding with reassessment was within the scope of section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948

Analysis: The rectification power under section 22 extends only to mistakes apparent from the record and not to review or reconsideration. The earlier order had withdrawn the composite reassessment notice as a whole, although it had considered only the provincial reassessment permission and had not adverted to the separate permission and grounds relating to the Central reassessment. That omission made the withdrawal of the Central reassessment notice an obvious mistake apparent from the record. Rectification was therefore confined to correcting that mistake and completing the reassessment already initiated.

Conclusion: The rectification and reassessment were within jurisdiction and valid.

Issue (ii): whether non-supply of the SIB report and refusal to permit cross-examination vitiated the reassessment on the ground of breach of natural justice

Analysis: The notice and the earlier material already disclosed the factual basis of the proposed reassessment, including the details concerning the C forms and the verification difficulties. The record showed that the assessee was made aware of the relevant correspondence and materials relied upon, and the impugned order recorded that the materials were available on the file and had been shown to the assessee. In these circumstances, the non-supply of the compilation described as the SIB report did not amount to denial of a fair hearing. Since the reassessment proceeded on documentary material already disclosed, the demand for cross-examination did not displace the validity of the proceedings.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was established.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment failed, and the writ petition was liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification power confined to mistakes apparent from the record may be used to correct an obvious inadvertent withdrawal of reassessment proceedings, and natural justice is not violated where the assessee has been effectively informed of the material relied upon and given an opportunity to respond.

---