Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) This revision has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated February 27, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench-I, relating to assessment year 1976-77.
(2.) The assessee was carrying on business in foodgrains. In the assessment year in question its books of account were accepted but the amounts of taulia, mandi shulk and palley dari, at the rate of one and a half per cent, one per cent and 15 naye paise per bag respectively, were added into the disclosed taxable turnover. It appears, that two forms 3-Ka covering the amount of Rs. 11,024.64 were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and the exemption was disallowed on the ground that they were not filed on the first date of hearing, i.e., September 12, 1979. Subsequently in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1980 ATJ 385 the assessee moved an application under Section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging therein that mandi shulk could not be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. The assessing authority rejected the application. The first appeal filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) succeeded and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority with a direction that mandi shulk could not be taken as a part of the taxable turnover on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. The assessee feeling further dissatisfied preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal against the order of remand and the Tribunal in the impugned order agreeing with the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) dismissed the second appeal. Being aggrieved the assessee has come to this Court in the instant revision.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Mehrotra Ram Gopal, counsel for the assessee-applicant, contended that September 12, 1979, was not the first date of hearing and the assessee was not required to produce the books of account on that date and as such the exemption claimed against forms 3-Ka has illegally and wrongly been disallowed by the Tribunal. The questions, first, whether September 12, 1979, was the first date of hearing; and secondly, whether the assessee was required to produce the books of account before the assessing authority on September 12, 1979, or' on a subsequent date are pure questions of fact which cannot possibly be adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is well-settled that only the mistakes which are apparent on the record can be rectified on an application, under Section 22 of the Act, made by a party and no controversial facts can be gone into. Since in the instant case the facts are disputed between the parties as to whether September 12, 1979, was the first date of hearing or not, in my opinion, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 22 of the Act.;