JUDGEMENT
P.N.BHAGWATI, J. -
(1.)THIS petition challenges the refusal of the revenue authorities to rectify orders of assessment to wealth -tax made on the petitioner for the assessment years 1957 -58, 1958 -59 and 1959 -60. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner claimed to deduct in computation of the net wealth on the relevant valuation date a certain amount each year in respect of provision for taxation but the claim was disallowed on the ground that the amount provided for tax liability did not constitute 'debt owed' from the petitioner on the relevant valuation date within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957. The Wealth -tax Officer accordingly added back the amounts claimed by way of deduction and computed the net wealth of the petitioner on that basis. The orders of assessment for the respective assessment years 1957 -58, 1958 -59 and 1959 -60 were made on 22nd September, 1958, 28th September, 1958, and 27the October, 1959. The petitioner did not prefer appeals against th orders of assessment. Subsequently, however, the petitioner came to know from a decision given by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal that the amounts claimed by it in respect of provision for taxation were deductible in computing the net wealth of the petitioner within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in each case in so far as the amounts claimed by the petitioner in respect of provision for taxation were wrongly disallowed and added back by the Wealth -tax Officer. The applications were rejected by the Wealth -tax Officer by a composite order dated 24th April, 1962. The only ground given by the Wealth -tax Officer for rejecting the applications was that there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record in the assessment orders and section 35 was accordingly not attracted. The petitioner preferred revision applications to the Commissioner of Wealth -tax but the revision applications were also unsuccessful and they were dismissed by a composite order dated 23rd March, 1964, on the same ground. The petitioner thereupon preferred the present petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Wealth -tax Officer refusing rectification and the order of the Commissioner rejecting the revision applications of the petitioner as also a writ of mandamus directing the Wealth -tax Officer and the Commissioner of Wealth -tax to rectify the orders of assessment by allowing deductions of the amounts claimed by way of provision for taxation.
(2.)THE principal argument of the petitioner in support of the petition was that there was clearly an error of law apparent on the face of the record in each of the three assessment orders inasmuch as the amount claimed by the petitioner in respect of provision for taxation was a 'debt owed' by the petitioner within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, and was, therefore, deductible in computing the net wealth of the petitioner on the relevant valuation date. This position was settled beyond doubt so far as assessments in the State of Gujarat are concerned by the decision of this court in Commissioner of Wealth -tax v. Raipur . and the view taken by this court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in an appeal from the Calcutta High Court in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth -tax. The Wealth -tax Officer was, therefore, wrong in refusing to rectify the orders of assessment on the ground that the assessment orders did not disclose any error of law apparent on the face of the record. It was urged that the Commissioner of Wealth -tax was in any event in error in rejecting the revision applications of the petitioner since at that date the decision of this court in Raipur Manufacturing Company's case was already declared and having regard to this decision it was indisputable that there was an error of law apparent on the face of the assessment orders. The petitioner contended that the orders of the Wealth -tax Officer and the Commissioner of Wealth -tax were, therefore, vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record and were liable to be quashed and set aside on certiorari. The revenue did not contest the position and, indeed, having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries case, it was not possible for them to do so, that the amount claimed as provision for taxation was a 'debt owed' within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, and was, therefore, deductible in computing the net wealth of the petitioner on the relevant valuation date. But the contention raised by them was that the assessment orders did not disclose any error of law apparent on the face of the record and, in any event, so far us the orders of the wealth -tax Officer and the Commissioner of Wealth -tax refusing rectification were concerned, there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record which would attract the certiorari jurisdiction of this court. The revenue also urged that in any event this court should not interfere in the exercise of its discretion under article 226 of the Constitution since the petitioner did not adopt the statutory remedy of an appeal for challenging the orders of assessment but preferred applications for rectification and the applications for rectification were disposed of at a time when there was no decision of the Supreme Court declaratory of the law on the point. These were the rival contentions of the parties and we shall now proceed to examine them.
Now, it is well -settled that a writ of certiorari can be issued where the order of the inferior tribunal is shown to suffer from an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record. It is not every error of law which is amenable to the certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court but only an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record that can be corrected in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction by the High Court. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration in this petition is whether the orders of the Wealth -tax Officer and the Commissioner of Wealth -tax suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The contention raised before the Wealth -tax Officer and the Commissioner of Wealth -tax was that the assessment orders in so far as they disallowed the claim for deduction in respect of the amount of provision for taxation suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the amount of the provision for taxation was a 'debt owed' by the petitioner within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, and was, therefore, deductible in computing the net wealth of the petitioner. This contention was negatived by the Wealth -tax Officer and the Commissioner of Wealth -tax who took the view that the disallowance of the claim for deduction in respect of the amount of provision for taxation did not constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Can this view taken by the Wealth -tax Officer and the Commissioner of Wealth -tax be said to suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record ? The answer to this question must depend on the decision of the question whether the disallowance of the claim for deduction in the assessment orders was a mistake which was apparent on the face of the record. It is to the determination of that question that we must, therefore, now turn.
(3.)IT was urged by the learned Advocate -General on behalf of the revenue that the orders of assessment to wealth -tax made on the petitioner, in so far as they disallowed the claim for deduction in respect of the amount of provision for taxation, did not disclose any mistake apparent from the record and, therefore, the Wealth -tax Officer and the Commissioner of Wealth -tax committed no error of law apparent on the face of the record in rejecting the petitioner's applications for rectification of the assessment orders. To attract the provisions of section 35 of the Act, and to bring the error, if any, in an assessment order within the meaning of the expression 'mistake apparent from the record', it was urged that what must be shown is that the mistake was committed at the time of the making of the order and not that the order was ultimately found to suffer from an infirmity or a mistake was subsequently discovered in the order as a result of later judicial pronouncements. It was strenuously contended that neither the decision of this court in Raipur Manufacturing Company's case nor the decision of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills' case was pronounced before the Wealth -tax Officer made the assessment orders in the petitioner's cases and since the law was not yet settled as on the date of the said assessment orders, it could not be said that the assessment orders disclosed any mistake of law apparent from the record. The submission in other words was that the assessment orders were proper and valid when they were made and merely because the said orders were later found to be erroneous in view of the subsequent judicial pronouncements, the provisions of section 35 would not be attracted and the Wealth -tax Officer would not be justified in rectifying the said orders on the ground that they disclosed a mistake of law apparent from the record.