Mistake apparent from record requires a clear error; debatable interpretation cannot justify rectification under the scheme.

Rectification under rule 8 of the Tax Credit Certificate (Corporation Tax) Scheme, 1966 was held invalid because the alleged error was not a mistake apparent from the record. The inclusion of cellophane within the relevant industrial entry was a debatable interpretive question, and a contested construction cannot be corrected through rectification. As the entry was sufficiently doubtful and the issue was not self-evident on the face of the record, the court found no jurisdiction to invoke the rectification power against the assessee. The impugned proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of the assessment under rule 8 of the Tax Credit Certificate (Corporation Tax) Scheme, 1966, was valid on the ground that the original grant of tax credit/rebate involved a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: Rectification under the scheme is permissible only where there is a mistake apparent from the record. The question whether cellophane fell within the relevant industrial entry was not free from doubt and was, at best, a debatable question. In such circumstances, the nature of the entry and its content made the matter sufficiently vexed that it could not be treated as an obvious error on the face of the record. The court therefore found no basis for invoking the rectification power against the assessee.

Conclusion: The rectification was invalid and the order quashing the impugned proceedings was ; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification power confined to a mistake apparent from the record cannot be exercised where the alleged error depends on a debatable interpretation of the relevant statutory entry.

---