TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing parties. [Judgment per : Arijit Pasayat, J.]. - Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division. Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Trade Tax Revision Case Nos. 1055 and 1070 of 1998 filed by the respondent. The two revisions were filed under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act') and the Central Trade Tax Act, 1956 (in short the 'Central Act'). 3. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows : The appellant hereinafter also referred to as the Assessee was dealing with Aluminium powder. In the original assessment order passed under Section 7(3) of the Act and Section 9 of the Central Act, Aluminium Powder was treated as metal and according....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is is a debatable issue and, therefore, Section 22 of the Act does not apply. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is a case where Section 22 of the Act had no application. The said provision is only applicable to a case where the error is apparent on the face of the record; Where the issue can not be decided in a undisputable manner, Section 22 has no application; and where a matter is disputable there can be no order under Section 22 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that in view of this Court's decision in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation's case (supra) there is no scope for taking a different view and, therefore, Section 22 clearly had application. 6. Section 22 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion's case (supra) was dated 30-5-1975. Subsequently, there has been an amendment by Notification dated 7-9-1981 by which "scrap" has also been included in the entry. It is, therefore, submitted that the ratio in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation's case (supra) applied as scrap has always been produced as a result of processing of the original metal. 8. This Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. (in all the Appeals) v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, [AIR 1964 SC 1372] held as follows : "There is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder to attract the application of Section 22, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. "Mistake" means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. "Apparent" means visible; capable of being seen, obvious; plain. It means "open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous, manifest, obvious, seeming." A mistake which can be rectified under Section 22 is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. In our view rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd "mistake" is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract the power to rectify under Section 22, it is not sufficient if there is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word "apparent" is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument....