Rectification is limited to obvious record errors and cannot be used to reopen merits or reappreciate evidence.

Rectification jurisdiction under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is limited to correcting an obvious mistake apparent from the record. An application that requires examination of evidence, transactions, or books of account, or that depends on long-drawn reasoning, falls outside rectification and amounts to an impermissible review of the merits. The Tribunal was therefore justified in rejecting the application because the relief sought sought reappreciation rather than correction of an apparent error. The revision failed, and the questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for rectification on the ground that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown and that the application in substance sought review and re-examination of the merits.

Analysis: The scope of rectification under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is confined to correcting an obvious mistake apparent from the record. A matter which requires detailed examination of evidence, transactions, or books of account, or which can be reached only after long-drawn reasoning, does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. An application framed as rectification cannot be used to reopen issues already decided or to secure a rehearing on merits.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the rectification application, as the relief sought amounted to a review rather than correction of an apparent mistake.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed and the questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction can be exercised only to correct an obvious error apparent from the record and cannot be invoked to reargue the merits or reappreciate evidence.

---