Rectification under U.P. VAT law is not limited to ex parte orders and may correct apparent mistakes in any order.

Rectificatory jurisdiction under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is not confined to ex parte orders; it extends to any order containing a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The limitation drawn from Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could not govern an application under Section 31. The Tribunal therefore applied an incorrect legal basis in treating the rectification application as not maintainable, and that rejection was unsustainable. The application under Section 31 was held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for rectification of mistake under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is maintainable only against an ex parte order, and whether rejection of such application on that basis was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 31 empowers the officer, authority, Tribunal, or High Court to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record in any order passed under the Act on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person. The provision does not confine the rectificatory jurisdiction to ex parte orders. The restriction relied upon by the Tribunal was drawn from Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, but that provision was not applicable to an application made under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Tribunal therefore proceeded on an erroneous legal basis in rejecting the application as not maintainable.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application was unsustainable, and the application under Section 31 was held to be maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectificatory jurisdiction under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is not limited to ex parte orders and extends to any order containing a mistake apparent on the face of the record.

---