Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) The assessee is a partnership firm registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which deals in Gur. In the original assessment proceeding, the accounts of the assessee were rejected but in first appeal, the same was accepted and assessee was assessed on the admitted purchase Gur. Subsequently, proceedings under section 21 were started on the basis of certain informations and the turnover of the assessee was enhanced in the said said proceedings. The assessee feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal against the said order 'which was dismissed on the ground of latches. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application before the Salex Tax Officer under section 22 I of the Act for rectification of the mistake apparent in the order of the assessing authority. The said application filed by the assessee under section 22 of the Act was allowed by the i Sales Tax Officer, Baraut by an order dated 10.1.1980.
(2.) It appears that subsequently the assessing authority itself issued a notice under section 22 of the Act to the assessee for rectifying the order dated 10.1.1980. The assessee contested the said proceedings but the assessing authority rejected the contention of the assessee and enhanced the turnover. The assessee feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Range, who allowed appeal and set aside the order dated 24th September, 1980 passed by the assessing authority purporting to be under section 22 of the Act. The Revenue feeling dis-satisfied preferred a second a appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Authority and restored the order passed by the assessing authority dated 26.9.1980. Before entering into the controversy involved in the instang revision, it is necessary to refer section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act which reads as under : "22. Rectification of mistakes (1) The assessing, appellate or revising authority or the Tribunal may, on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person rectify any mistake in it order, apparent on the record within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified : Provided that when an application under sub-section has been made within such period of three years, it may be disposed of even beyond such period. Provided further that no such rectification he as has the effect of enhancing the assessment, penalty, fees or other dues shall be made unless reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the dealer or other person likely to be effected by such enhancement. (2) Where such rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment, the authority concerned shall-serve on the dealer a revised notice of demand in the prescribed form and there form all the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder shall apply as if such notice has been served in the first instance." From the perusal of the language of section 22 and also on the basis of the well settled principle, there is no manner of doubt that only the mistake which are apparent on the face of record can be corrected under section 22 of the Act. It is also settled that if the mistake sought to be corrected requires any further investigation or enquiry the same would be beyond the preview to section 22 of the Act. Applying the aforesaid tests the counsel for the assessee has contended that the order dated 26.9.1985 passed by the assessing authority was beyond the preview to section 22.
(3.) On the contrary the learned standing counsel appearing for the department has tried to support the order dated 26.9.1980 passed by the assessing authority under section 22 and also the order of the Tribunal on the ground that since there was an arithematical mistake which was discovered later on the impugned order is wholly justified. A perusal of the order dated 26.9.1980 passed by the assessing authority clearly indicates that the enhancement in the turnover was not made merely on the basis of mistake make in calculating the turnover but the earlier order dated 10.1.1980 passed under section 22 the Act was modified on the basis of certain enquiries made from Arhatiyas. The said enquiry and investigation is not permissible under section 22 of the Act. Apart from this, the order dated 26.9.1980 by the assessing authority under section 22 of the Act. In the statute there is no provision for review of an order passed by an authority but the standing Counsel has contended that in the absence of any power of review given in the Statute the order could be corrected or rectified under section 22 of the Act. I am unable to accept the said contention. If the department was aggrieved in any manner against the order dated 10.1.80 passed by the assessing authority the same could have been challenged by it. But the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to review its own order after holding an enquiry. In my opinion, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was right in holding that the assessing authority travelled beyond the scope of section 22 of the Act in holding an enquiry and reviewing order but the Tribunal appears to have fallen in error in holding that the subsequent order dated 26.9 1980 passed by the assessing authority could be brought within the ambit of section 22 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the assessing authority dated 26.9.1980 cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed.;