Rectification jurisdiction permits recall for patent factual error, but not disguised review of a debatable decision.

Rectification jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act extends to an admitted, patent factual error apparent from the record, but not to a disguised review of a debatable issue. The Tribunal had assumed the assessments were under Section 33(3) when they were in fact under Section 33(2), and that mistake went to the root of the earlier order. The court held that recalling the order for fresh consideration on the correct factual basis was permissible, because the correction was necessary to remove the obvious error rather than to reassess the merits. The challenge to the rectification order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in exercising rectification jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act to correct factual inaccuracies in its earlier order and recall the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The rectification power is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and does not permit review or reassessment of a decision on a debatable issue. Where the earlier order proceeded on an admitted factual error, namely the mistaken assumption that the assessments were under Section 33(3) when in fact they were under Section 33(2), the error was patent and obvious from the record. Such an error went to the root of the matter and could be corrected by recalling the order so that the appeal could be decided on the correct factual basis. The Court distinguished a case involving impermissible review from a case where recall was necessary to eliminate an obvious factual mistake.

Conclusion: The Tribunal acted within the scope of Section 62 in rectifying the admitted factual error and directing recall of its earlier order. The challenge to the rectification order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An admitted and patent factual mistake that is apparent from the record and goes to the root of the decision may be corrected in rectification jurisdiction, including by recall of the earlier order, but such power cannot be used as a disguised review.

---