YASHWANT VARMA, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel.
(2.) This revision questions the correctness of an order dated 28 April 2017 passed by the Tribunal rejecting an application made under Section 22 of the erstwhile U.P. Trade Tax 1948. The application sought rectification of an order dated 17 January 2014 which had proceeded to uphold a decision rendered by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the revisionist as barred by time. One of the findings which came to be recorded by the Tribunal was that the period during which the lawyer of the revisionist was stated to be out of the country had not been proved.
(3.) By means of a supplementary affidavit, Shri Kumar, learned counsel appearing in support of the revision, has brought on record a copy of the complete paper book which is stated to have been filed before the Tribunal. In the said paper book, Shri Kumar has drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant copies of the passport of the counsel who appeared before the Tribunal to submit that there was adequate material before the Tribunal to establish that the counsel was out of the country during the period in question. This, in his submission, was sufficient to characterise the order of the Tribunal dated 17 January 2014 as suffering from a mistake which was apparent on the record.;