Rectification cannot be used as review; valid interest remission under sales tax law cannot be undone without apparent error.

Rectification cannot be used to reopen a concluded appellate order or to exercise a disguised power of review; a mistake apparent on the face of the record was not shown, so the Tribunal's rectification order was unsustainable. The first proviso to Section 36(3)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 permits remission of the whole or part of interest for recorded reasons, and the earlier reduction of interest to 36% had been made on relevant considerations, including the dealer's financial difficulty. That statutory remission could not be undone through rectification on an erroneous premise. The questions were answered in favour of the dealer and the higher interest levy was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could, in the guise of rectification, recall its earlier appellate order and thereby exercise a power of review; (ii) whether the reduction of interest to 36% under the first proviso to Section 36(3)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was permissible on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could, in the guise of rectification, recall its earlier appellate order and thereby exercise a power of review.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had been passed after considering the levy of interest and the request for remission. The rectification application was allowed not for correction of any clerical or patent error, but by reappreciating the matter and substituting a new reasoning. That amounted to reopening the merits and effectively recalling the entire earlier order. Rectification cannot be used to undertake review of a concluded decision, and a mistake apparent on the face of the record was not shown.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to use rectification as a review power, and its order allowing rectification was unsustainable in law.

Issue (ii): Whether the reduction of interest to 36% under the first proviso to Section 36(3)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was permissible on the facts.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 36(3)(b) empowered the appellate authority to remit the whole or any part of the interest payable for reasons to be recorded in writing. The earlier order had proceeded on the basis of the dealer's financial difficulty and the concession recorded before the Tribunal. The subsequent order failed to consider this proviso and instead treated the matter as if the Revenue was challenging the original relief on merits. Once the statutory power of remission had been exercised on relevant considerations, it could not be nullified by rectification on an erroneous premise.

Conclusion: The reduction of interest to 36% was within the statutory power and could not be disturbed by rectification.

Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered in favour of the dealer, the Revenue's rectification-based challenge failed, and the Tribunal's order restoring the higher levy of interest was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be employed to review or recall a concluded appellate order, and a statutory power to remit interest, once validly exercised on relevant grounds, cannot be undone absent a mistake apparent on the face of the record.

---