A. N. GUPTA, J. - (1.) These three revisions relate to the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The applicant is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of foodgrains, oil-seeds and pulses and is also registered under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority rejected the account books of the applicant in respect of all the three years and made best judgment assessment. Against the said orders is filed first appeals under section 9 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, who accepted the account books of the applicant and allowed the appeals. Thereafter an application under section 22 of the Act for rectification of the mistake was moved by the applicant before the said Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who allowed it vide order dated April 14, 1982. It was held by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) that the applicant had been issued a licence under the then existing section 3-E of the Act and after it had been verified that the principal on whose behalf the applicant had made purchases in his commission agency had deposited the tax, the applicant was not liable for the same. Accordingly tax reliefs amounting to Rs. 1,444. 19, Rs. 5,253. 18 and Rs. 2,649. 24 in respect of the three assessment years were allowed to the applicant. The Revenue feeling aggrieved preferred appeals against the said order passed under section 22 of the act by the first appellate authority to the Sales Tax Tribunal which by means of the impugned judgment dated November 13, 1987 allowed the appeals of the Revenue. Now the assessee-applicant has preferred these revisions against the said order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned here that the Tribunal has disposed of some other appeals of the parties which need not be gone into because they are not subject-matter of revisions before this Court. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant, pressed only one point. He contended that no appeal against an order passed by the first appellate authority, under section 22 of the Act lies under section 10 of the Act before the the Sales Tax Tribunal. It is necessary cite the relevant parts of sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act in order to appreciate the controversy raised in these revisions. The application under section 22 of the Act was moved by the applicant and was disposed of in the year 1982 and, therefore, the relevant provisions of sections 9, 10 and 11 cited below are those which were on the statute book at that time : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Section 9 Section 10 APPEAL SALES TAX TRIBUNAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ " (1) Any dealer or any other (2) Any person aggrieved person aggrieved be any by an order passed by order made by the an appellate authority assessing authority, under section 9 or by other than an the order revising authority mentioned in section 10-A under section 10-B or may, within thirty days by a decision given by from the date of service the Commissioner of of the copy of the order, Sales Tax under section 35 appeal to such authority may, within six months from as may be prescribed : the date of service of the copy of such order, decision or direction on him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. ------------------------------ Section 11 REVISION BY HIGH COURT IN SPECIAL CASES ------------------------------ 3 ------------------------------ (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of section 10 or by an order passed under section 22 by the Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of service of such order, apply to the High Court for revision of such order on the ground that the case involves any question of law. A perusal of the said sub-sections of sections 9, 10 and 11 shows that the first appeal against any order passed by the assessing authority is provided for under section 9, second appeal lies to the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 10 and thereafter revision can be preferred before this Court under section 11. The use of the words in section 9 (1) "any dealer or any other person aggrieved by an order made by the assessing authority" indicate that first appeal lies against any and every order passed by the assessing authority except an order mentioned in section 10-A, with which we are not concerned. On the other hand it has been laid down under sub-section (2) of section 10 that the second appeal lies before the Sales Tax Tribunal against an order passed by an appellate authority under section 9 other than the orders referred to therein. Thus second appeal lies only against an order passed by the first appellate authority under section 9. It does not mention that an appeal also lies to the Tribunal against an order passed under section 22 by the first appellate authority unlike the provisions of section 11 wherein a revision is provided for not only against an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, under section 10 but also against an order passed under section 22 of the Act. The legislative history of section 11 shows that originally there was no provision that a revision lies in this Court against an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 22 of the Act. However, by amending Act No. 10 of 1979 it was specifically provided that a revision lies to this Court under section 11 of the Act even against a decision given by the Tribunal under section 22 of the Act. It was held by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Laxmi Dal Mills, Aligarh 1978 UPTC 417, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Madhesia Trading Company, Basti 1979 UPTC 1024 and Ram Bharosey Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. 1980 STC 179, that no revision or reference lies to this Court under section 11 of the Act against an order passed by the Tribunal under section 22 of the Act because there is no specific provision in section 11 that a revision lies even against an order passed under section 22 of the Act by the Tribunal. On the basis of the said decisions it was argued by Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that since there is no specific provision for appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal against an order passed by the first appellate authority under section 22 of the Act, no appeal lies against such an order. It was also urged that an appeal or revision is a creation of statute and therefore, unless there is a specific provision no appeal or revision can lie. However, all these arguments were considered by this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. State Electricity Board, Rampur 1983 UPTC 1164 and it was held that an order passed under section 22 of the Act by the first appellate authority is in substance an order passed in the appeal and since a second appeal lies against an order passed by the first appellate authority in the appeal, an appeal also lies against an order passed by the first appeallate authority under section 22 of the Act. It was further held that an amendment made in section 11 (1) of the Act by amending Act No. 10 of 1979 was made ex abundanti cautela. In this connection it is also worthy of notice that sub-section (4) of section 9 also provides that an order passed under this section (section 9) shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be final. Therefore, the order passed under section 9 (3) of the Act is final subject to any order passed under section 10 or section 11 of the Act. There seems to be no logic in the Legislature for having provided a remedy against an order passed under section 22 of the Act by an assessing authority or by the Tribunal but having denied it in a case where such an order is passed by the first appellate authority. In fact order passed under section 22 of the Act by the first appellate authority is by way of review or is in the nature of rectification of mistake and therefore, it is an order passed in appeal. It is also significant to note that what the appellate authority has done while passing the order under section 22 of the Act, is nothing but rectification of a mistake in its appellate order and, therefore, the rectification order is nothing but an order passed in the appeal itself. With respect I agree with the earlier decision of this Court given in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. v. State Electricity Board 1983 UPTC 1164 and hold that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining and disposing of the departmental appeals. No other point was argued or pressed by either side. The result is that these revisions have no force and are hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;