Rectification power is limited to apparent errors and cannot be used to reopen revisional findings on turnover or transit sales.

Rule 60 permits rectification only of clerical or arithmetical mistakes apparent from the record within the prescribed time, and cannot be used to revisit the substance of a revisional order. The court distinguished rectification from re-assessment, noting that grievances about turnover and transit sales challenged the merits of the revision decision rather than any apparent error. Only one limited arithmetical correction was accepted; the remaining claims fell outside Rule 60. On that basis, no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out and the challenge to the refusal of rectification failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the authority could, in exercise of rectification power under Rule 60, revisit and alter findings in the revisional order beyond correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes apparent from the record.

Analysis: Rule 60 permits rectification only of clerical or arithmetical mistakes apparent from the record within the prescribed time. The Court held that the petitioner's remaining grievances concerned the substance of the revision order, including the treatment of turnover and transit sales, and did not disclose any clerical or arithmetical error. The distinction between rectification and re-assessment was also recognised, and it was held that Rule 60 could not be used to change the opinion already reached in revision or to correct alleged illegality in the revisional decision. Since only one limited arithmetical correction was accepted and the rest of the claims lay outside the scope of Rule 60, no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application on the remaining issues was upheld and the challenge failed.

---