ivil Appeals Nos 928 and 929 of 1975
From the Judgment and Order dated 8 10 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Nos 2169 and 2276 of 1974
FS Nariman DN Misra and OC Mathur for the appellant
SC Manchanda and OP Rana for the respondents
ARGUMENTS APPELLANTS 1
Civil Appeal No 928 of 1975
In this Appeal three questions arise for determination i Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the proviso to section 91 of the was applicable so as to enable the State of Uttar Pradesh to levy and collect Central Sales Tax in respect of the subsequent sales of coal effected by the Appellants to consum ers in the State of UP  ii Whether the Sales Tax Officer Moradabad had no jurisdiction to rectify the assessment for the year 1966 67 as there was no error apparent on the face of the record of the original assess ment section 22 of the UP Sales Tax Act 1948 iii Whether the order of rectification passed under section 22 of the UP Sales Tax Act on 26th March 1974 for the assessment year 1966 67 and communicated to the Appellants on 31st March 1974 was barred by limitation as it could not be said to be within
three years from the date of the original assessment order dated the 27th March 1971  II
Re Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the proviso to Section 91 of the was applicable so as to enable the State of Uttar Pradesh to levy and collect Central 28 Sales Tax in respect of the subsequent sates of coal ef fected by the Appellants to consumers in the State of UP  a The proviso to section 91 of the does not apply either  i to subsequent sales in the course of inter State trade or commerce of declared goods ie goods declared in section 14 to be of spe cial importance in inter State trade or commerce or ii to sale of goods to persons other than registered dealers b The argument in support of the submission that the proviso to section 91  does not apply to declared goods is as follows  Section 81 and 82 of the deals separately with two types of goods namely i goods of the description referred to in sub section3 see section 81b and ii declared goods see section 82a
The rates of tax for the two types of goods have been and are differently prescribed in sub section
1 and sub section
2 of section 8 especially since the Amending Act VIII of 1963
The expression goods of the description referred to in sub section 3 in section 81 originally in cluded declared goods intended for re sale see section 83a as originally enacted in the reproduced in Chaturvedi s  4th Edition p 548
Sub section 3 of section 8 then read as follows 3 The goods referred to in sub section 1 a in the case of declared goods are goods of the class or classes specified in the certifi cate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him and b in any other case are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of regis tration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for re sale by him or for use by him in the manufacture of goods for sale or for use by him in the execution of any contract and in either case include the containers or other materials used for the packing of goods of the class or classes of goods so specified
 By the Amending Act VIII of 1963 which raised the rate of tax under section 81 to 2 per cent clause a of section 83 stood deleted
The effect of this deletion was 29 that since 1963declared goods fell outside the purview of section 83 Section 84 only applies to sales of goods of the description referred to in sub section
3 since the provisions of that sub section have express reference to the provisions of section 8 1 
For the proviso to section 9 1  being applicable it is necessary that the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or could have obtained the form prescribed in section 84a ie
Form C  prescribed under rr
12 and 13 of the Central Sales Tax Registration and Turn over Rules 1957 see pages 25 and 27 of Chaturvedi s  Fourth Edition
In the present case the appellants neither obtained nor could have obtained Form C  from their purchaser since section 84 read with section 81 and 3 did not after 1963 apply to declared goods
It is submitted that to accept the arguments urged on behalf of the Respondents that section 84a read with section 81 and 3 dealt with declared goods as well would be to give no meaning to the provisions contained in section 82
Besides as held by Their Lordships in State of Tamil Nadu vs Sitalakshmi Mills  Others C  at 412 para 6 section 8 deals with three different classes of cases declared goods do not fall within the class mentioned in section 8  1 
The argument that the charging section 6 does not make any differentiation between declared and undeclared goods is of no avail
Section 61 itself commences with the words Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act   
If the effect of any other provision is to take away liability to pay sales tax effect would have to be given to that other provision notwithstanding the charging section see State of Mysore vs L Setty 16 STC 231239 SC
Declared  goods are clearly intended by the framers of Central Tax Act 1956 to receive preferential treatment not only in respect of local sales tax on local sales see section 15 but also Central Sales Tax in sales effected during the course of inter State trade or commerce see section 82
c Even assuming that section 84a read with section 81 and 3 include within its purview declared goods the proviso to section 91 is still inapplicable for the following reason  For the proviso to section 91 to be applicable and
for the State of UP to have jurisdiction to levy and collect the Central Sales Tax on subsequent sales it is necessary that the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sales by endorsement of documents of title like Railway Receipt during the course of the movement of the goods from one State to another either obtained or as the case may be 30 could have obtained the Form prescribed
in section 84a in connection with the purchase of such goods involved in the subsequent sale
Such a form could only be obtained under section 84a from the appellants  purchasers if the appellants  sales were to be a registered dealer see section 81 b
Admittedly in the present case the appellants though registered dealer for the rele vant year in question did not sell coal to any registered dealer see the averments in para 11 of the Writ Petition page 62 Vol 2 which have not been denied in the Affidavit in Reply para 8 page 109 Vol 2
Therefore even assuming that the provisions of section 84a read with section 81 and 3 were applicable to declared goods even after the Amending Act VIII of 1963 the sales result ing in the turnover of Rs 55917238 not being to registered dealers the provisions of section 81b were not attracted
Consequently the form pre scribed under section 84a Form C  could not have been obtained by the appellants  purchaser from the prescribed authority
Consequently the appel lants could not obtain from their purchaser such form under section 24a
Accordingly the last part of the proviso to section 91 not being satisfied the State of UP had not jurisdiction to levy and collect Central Sales Tax from the Appellants
Re Whether the Sales Tax Officer Moradabad had no jurisdiction to rectify the assessment for the year 1966 67 as there was no error apparent on the face of the record of the original assessment Section 22 of the UP Sales Tax Act 1948  It has been stated in the order of rectification dated the 26th March 1974 passed under section 22 of the UP Sales Tax Act 1948 that page 96 Vol 2 In the present case of the assessee tiffs error is apparent because if this fact that it was registered under the had been placed before the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar  Bros Coal Sales Ltd Moradabad for the year 1965 66 the decision would have been against them as have been happened in the above mentioned two cases The error apparent on the face of the record which is a condition precedent to invoking the rectification provision section 22 is that the appellants were treated as unregistered dealers by the High Court in the decision for the earlier assessment year 1965 66 the judgment of the Hi h Court has been extracted at pages 71 78 of Vol 2
But in section 22 the error has to be an error apparent on the face of the re cord of the assessment ie
for the assessment year 1966 67
This assessment order is dated 27th March 1971 and a copy of it is at pages 31 79 83 of VoL 2
In that order it is specifically mentioned page 79 viz
 10
Whether registered or not Yes
Thus it was known to the Sales Tax Officer passing the original assessment order that the appellants were in fact registered dealers
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an error which is glaring and obvious see   150 SC
Besides there is a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characte rised as vitiated by error apparent
A rectification is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected
It lies only for patent error see Thungabhudra Industries Ltd vs Government of Andhra Pradesh   186 where the expression error apparent on the face of the record in 047 r i CPC was interpreted by the Supreme Court
In that case was also said that an error apparent on the face of the record was one where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error page 186
This is also the
view expressed in a Sales Tax Case Master Construction Co 17 STC 360 365 366 Subba Rao J
In the present case it is submitted that the view of the Sales Tax Officer Moradabad who passed the original assessment order dated 27th March 1971 following the deci sion of the Allahabad High Court dated the 24th July 1970 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 4356 of 1969 pages 71 to 78 was not patently erroneous
As a matter of fact the correctness of the subsequent decisions of the Allahabad High Court is being doubted in the present Appeal and there is no pronouncement of your Lordships on the question viz interpretation of the proviso to section 9 1 
Besides it cannot be said that at the time when the original assessment order was passed there was a manifest error
Moreover even as a result of the subsequent decisions of the Allahabad High Court it cannot be said that what was not an error on 27th March 1971 became an error on 26th March 1974 the date of the rectification order under section 22
In any event even assuming that there was an error that error is not apparent on the face of the record of the original assess ment it is a matter in which the arguments to say the least are evenly balanced and a decision of the Highest Court is now awaited
In the circumstances there was no jurisdiction in the Sales Tax Officer Moradabad to rectify and set aside the original order of assessment IV
Re Whether the order of rectification passed under Section 22 of the UP Sales Tax Act on 26th March 1974 for the assessment year 1966 67 and communicated to the Appellants on 31st March 1974 was barred by limitation as it could not be said to be within three years from the date
of the original assessment order dated the 27th March 1971  It is submitted that the period of limitation under section 22 of the UP Sales Tax Act 1948 runs from the date on which the order of rectification is communicated to the assessee which would enable the assessee to file an appeal under section 9 of the UP Sales Tax Act 1948
The period of limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days from the date of service of the copy of the order appealed against
It is submitted that an order of rectifi cation is not complete as against the assessee unless it is duly communicated to him
The order of rectification af fects the rights and liability of an assessee and it is essentially fair and just that it should be communicated to the party as stated by Your Lordships in a case under the Land Acquisition Act where the phrase date of the Collec tor s award was being considered
Your Lordships observed   
If the award is treated as an admin istrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense like all decisions which affect persons it is essentially fair and just that the said decision should be communi cated to the said party
The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision either actual or constructive is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force
Thus considered the making of the award cannot consist merely in the physical act of writ ing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector it must involve the communication of the said award to the party con cerned either actually or constructively
If the award is
pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it it can be said to be made when pronounced
If the date for the pro nouncement of the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be commu nicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronounce ment
Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later
The knowledge of the party affected by the award either actual or constructive being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice the expression the date of award  used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either commu nicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively
In our opinion there fore it would be unreasonable to construe the words from the date of the Collector s award used in the proviso to section 18 in a literal or mechanical way AIR 1961 SC 1500 1503 1962 1 SCR 676 683684
It is submitted that on an analogy of reasoning the words the date of any order passed by him in section 221 of the UP Sates Tax Act 1948 must be construed to mean the effective date of an order of rectification viz the date when it is communicated
In the instant case the order was communicated after three years from the date of the assess ment order and therefore the order of rectification is vitiated as being barred by time
33 V 1n Civil Appeal No 929 of 1975 the only question that arises is Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the proviso to section 91 of the  was applicable so as to enable the State of Uttar Pradesh to levy and collect central sales tax in respect of the subsequent sales of coal effected by the appellants to consumers in the State of UP  The assessment year in question is 1969 70 and the Appellant adopts the arguments urged in Civil Appeal No 928 of 1975
With regard to whether the sales by the appellants in 1969 1970 during the course of the movement of the goods from State to State were to registered dealers or to consum ers there is no indication in the record as to wheth er the sales effected to registered dealers or to con sumers or unregistered dealers
In the event of Your Lord ships holding that declared goods are not covered by the proviso to section 91 this would make no difference because it is admitted that the subsequent sales effected by the appel lants were of declared goods namely coal
But in the event of Your Lordships coming to the conclusion that the proviso to section 9 1  may include also subsequent sales of declared goods then the submission urged is as in Civil Appeal No 928 of 1975 that in any view of the matter it is only subsequent sales to registered dealers which would attract jurisdiction of the State authorities under the proviso to section 9 1  and not subsequent sales by the appellants to unregistered dealers or consumers
The fact would be easy of ascertainment by the Sales Tax Officer and it is submit ted that in that event a direction ought to be given that the State of UP could levy and collect central sales tax under proviso to section 9 1  in respect of subsequent sales of coal effected by the appellants only to registered dealers and not to unregistered dealers or consumers
short one
It is as to which State has jurisdiction to tax subsequent sales made by a registered dealer
In the instant case admittedly the appellant is a dealer regis tered in UP both under the Central and the UP Act
Therefore the short question which arises for consideration is as to whether in the instant case the State of UP would have the jurisdiction to tax such subsequent sales effected by the enforcement of documents t0 parties in UP  There is a specific provision in the Act which is proviso to section 9 1  to cover cases such as the present case
Section 91 reads The tax payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of interstate trade or commerce whether such sales fall within clause a or clause b of section 3 shall be levied by the Government of India and the tax so levied shall be collected by that gov ernment in accordance with the provisions of sub section 2 in the State from which the movement of goods commence Provided that in the case of a sale of goods during their movement from one State to another being a sale subse quent to the first sale in respect of the same goods the tax 34 shall where such sale does not fall within sub section 2 of section 6 be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or as the case may be could have obtained the form pre scribed for the purposes of clause a of sub sec tion 4 of section 8 in connection with the pur chase of such goods Sub section
2 of section 9 merely provides that the appropriate State on behalf of the Government of India shall assess reassess collect and enforce payment of tax under the Act as if the  tax under the Act was a tax payable under the general sales tax law of the State
Therefore it is that the tax to be collected under the Act is by the appro priate State for and on behalf of the Government of India
In the case of at first sales the substantive provisions of section 9 1  are clear and unequivocal
Section 9 1  selects out of several States one
particular State and empowers it to levy and collect CST That State alone has the power to levy the tax and all other States by implica tion are debarred
This was a simple device adopted in order to fix the forum and jurisdiction of the particular State to make the assessment in respect of first sales
A simple test was evolved to avoid multiplicity of imposition of tax by more than one State in respect of the same goods and that was to link the tax with the commencement of the physical movement of the goods on their Journey from one State to another
This was simple to comprehend and exe cute
Therefore the appropriate State was the one from where the
movement of goods started on their interstate journey
That problem does not concern us here as the States of Bihar and Bengal from where the movement of coal commenced have duly assessed the tax us 9 1 of the Act
The question however is which is the State which can tax the subsequent sale in the instant case
For this purpose the proviso had to be enacted as admittedly CST is multipoint in nature and there is no provision for a single point tax
The only exemption is to be found in section 62 which is the charging section and if the transaction does not satisfy all the three conditions of section 62 viz a the purchaser is a registered dealer b who by a certificate of registration is authorised to purchase his goods and c the selling dealer furnishes to his assessing authority  i a certificate duly filled and signed by the registered dealer from whom the goods were pur chased containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed au thority and ii a declaration in C Form duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods were sold
see Chaturvedi s 3rd edition page 383
No attempt has been made by the appellant assessee in the instant case even to allege what to say of proof that the aforesaid three conditions were satisfied
Therefore section 62 which provides for exemption in respect of subsequent sales albeit of declared or undeclared goods will have no application
The position therefore would be that the 35 subsequent sales in the instant case would not be exempt us 62
Therefore the subsequent shies have to be taxed and the only question is which State would have jurisdiction to assess the subsequent sales
It was fairly conceded that the subsequent sales would be assessable us 9  1  except sales of declared goods
The argument was built up merely On the omission of el
a from section 83 of the Act with effect from 1 4 1963
Prior to that date section 83 ran as follows The goods referred to in clause b of sub section 1 a in the case of declared goods or goods of the class or classes specified in the certifi cate or registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him  The above was omitted by section 2iii a of the CST Amendment Act No 8 of 1963 with effect from 1st April 1963
From this omission it was assumed that it was no longer necessary for de clared goods to be specified in the declaration prescribed under rule 12 and the Form C
This assumption is wholly unwarranted and is contrary to the provisions of the Amending Act No 8 of 1963 The omission of cl
a and certain words in cl
b of section 83 was necessitated as the legislature probably wanted to do away with the distinction between declared goods and undeclared goods for purposes of section 83
Hence it deleted clause a in its entirety and the words in the case of goods other than declared goods from cl
b of section 83
Thus with effect from 1 4 63 so far as mentioning of goods in the certificate of registration of purchasing dealer for purpose of re sale etc
are concerned they made only one category and specified the same rate of tax as was applicable us 8  1  both for declared and undeclared goods provided Form C was duly submit ted
The above interpretation also finds support from Chaturvedi s Central Sales Tax Law 3rd edi tion 1973 at page 325 paras 7 and 8 which read as  Clause a of section 83 was omitted by section 2iii a of the Amendment Act 1963 with effect from 1 4 63
Before that the rate of tax for sales covered in sub section 1  was 1 pc and all the sales or purchases of declared goods under the said Act could be subjected to tax at the rate upto 2 by virtue to section 15 of the principal Act
Sales covered under sub
section
1 could enjoy a concessional rate of 1 pc instead of the state rate of 2 po
But when by the CST Amendment Act No 8 of 1963 the rate of tax for sales covered by sub section
1  was enhanced also to 2 po
there was no use of cl
a of sub section
3 and it was omitted In el
b of sub section
3 the opening words in the case of goods other than declared goods  were omitted by section 2iii b of the CST Amend ment Act 1963 with effect from 1 4 63
 36 Thus it is manifest that the argument laboriously built up had no foundation and the omission of sub cl
a from section 83 if anything goes against the contention of the assessee and fully supports the contention of the Department as that Vividly demonstrates that if there was ever any intention of the legislature to make any distinction between declared and undeclared goods insofar as the sale of such goods was made to government or to a regd dealer that was done away with after 1 4 63
The contention for the Department was that there was never any distinction made between declared and undeclared goods even in the Act and the Rules prior to 1963 64 in the matter of specification of the class or classes of goods in the application under Form A the certificate under From B and the requisite declaration under Forn C under rr 5 and 12 of the CST Rules
The only place where the words declared goods occur is in section 82 a which merely provides the rate of tax applicable for sales without furnishing Form C  and not for any other reason
Thus the Act the Rules and the Forms make no distinction between declared and undeclared goods whatsoever
The main argument therefore has no force and in the absence of the condition us 62 having been satis fied declared goods are taxable and the assessee being a regd
dealer registered in UP both under the Central Act and the UP Act and the subsequent sale having been effect ed by such registered dealer in the State of UP the provi so to section 9 1  is clearly attracted
To sum up in the instant case the State of UP would have the jurisdiction to assess levy and collect CST on subsequent sales effected by the assessee under the provi so to section 9 1  provided the following conditions are satisfied 1 The sale is a subsequent sale made during the movement of goods from the States of W Bengal and  Bihar to the State of UP This condition was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the assessee to be satisfied
2 The subsequent sale is in respect of the same goods
Tiffs was also conceded
3 That the goods do not fail within section 62 that is the sale was to a registered dealer other than Government if the goods are of the description referred to in Sub section 3 of section 8
Such subsequent sale would be exempt provided the necessary certificate in Form C is produced
4 The registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or could have obtained the form prescribed for purposes of el
a of sub
section
4 or section 8 that is Form C
The last two conditions according to the learned couusel do not require to be satisfied in case of declared goods
As already stated there is no express warrant nor does the scheme of the Act support any distinction for CST be tween declared and undeclared goods except in the conces sional rate applicable
37 Section 15 only places restrictions and conditions in regard to intra state sales of declared goods  This has no application to intexstate sales and therefore the single point tax provided in section 15 cannot be imported into the other provisions of the Act
Therefore CST is multi point in the absence of any specific provision to make it single point
The relevant sections are section 3 which artificially determines when sale of goods can be said to take place in the course of interstate trade or commerce
Section 6 is the charging section
It is significant that it charges tax on all sales
Therefore unless there is a specific exemption sales of both declared and undeclared goods would be taxable
It is well settled that the burden of proof lies heavily on the person who claims such exemp tion
Section 62 deals with the charge to be levied in respect of a subsequent sale effected by transfer of docu ments to a regd
dealer which would be exempt provided the conditions specified in the proviso thereto are satisfied
These conditions undoubtedly have not been satisfied
The case of the assessee is that they do not require to be satisfied in the case of declared goods
section 73 requires in the certificate of registration under r 5 and for the purposes of section 8 1  the class or classes of goods to be specified and it is only in respect of those goods so specified that to be exemption or conces sional rate is available and not otherwise
section 8 merely provides the rates of tax on inter state sales
There is a concessional rate of 3 for sales to regd
dealers provided the goods are of the description referred to in section 83 which refers to section 73 and the application in Form A and the certificate in Form B issued under rr 3 and 5 of the Rules
Section 82 refers specif ically to the concessional rate for declared goods vis a vis undeclared goods
For declared goods it is 3  being the rate in the appropriate State and 10 for undeclared goods
Beyond this concessional rate there is no other distinction made between declared and undeclared goods
section 83 refers back to section 73 rr 3 and 5 and Forms A and B and only those goods declared and undeclared which find a place the certificate are entitled to the conces sional rate and none others
The proviso to section 91 specifically covers the instant case
The assessee is a regd
dealer and the sales do not fall within the exemption us 62 and being a regd
dealer in UP he could have obtained the Form C from the Sales Tax Officer of his Circle
It therefore follows that in the instant case there can be no doubt whatsoever that the admitted subsequent sales are taxable in the State of UP for and on behalf of the Government of India us 91 of CST B Contentions 2 and 3
These may be dealt with togeth er
The argument of the learned counsel for the assessee in short was that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore 38 section 22 of the UP Act read with section 92 of the Central Act could not be invoked
It must be remembered that this point is taken in a writ under article 226 when there was no possi bility of the appeal or revisional courts going into the facts of the case
In these circumstances the facts as found by the Sales Tax Officer in his order us 22 and by the High Court in its judgment dismissing the writ petition will have to be taken as sacrosanct
At page 92 of volume II is the order us 22
At page 94 line 4 it is stated The assessee is registered in this office under CST Act and their Central regn
No is 2931 which had been in existence since 4 12 65
In the case of Ms Karam Chand Thapar  Bros for the year 1965 66the High Court had held that sales made by them were exempt from CST or UP Sales Tax and the authorities of Bihar or West Bengal only could assess the tax
Thereafter the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in many cases held that if the assessee was registered under the CST the authority of that State had jurisdiction to make assessments
Therefore the STO Morada bad has jurisdiction to assess the assessee
In the meanwhile the High Court of Allahabad held in several cases that only dealers who are registered under the CST are liable to be assessed under the Act as for example    At page 96 line 2 In the present case of the assessee this error is apparent because if this fact that it was registered under the CST had been placed before the High Court   for the year 1965 66 the decision would have been against them as hap pened in the above mentioned two cases
 At page 97 line 4 In the above mentioned case the error of law is clear because us 91 the jurisdiction of assessment of tax lies only with that State where from the dealer has received their Central Regn
No and wherefrom the dealer receives C Form
 Similarly the judgment of the High Court is at page 1 of volume I and at page 2 last paragraph the finding is The petitioner claimed that the turnover of Rs 3007 lakhs was exempt from tax and that of Rs 559 lakhs could not be taxed in the State of UP
The STO relying upon the observations made by the High Court in petitioner s own assessment case for the year 1965 66 accepted his case that his turnover amounting to Rs 559 lakhs could not be taxed in UP Subsequently in a number of cases this Court ruled that in a case where a dealer effecting a second sale in the course of inter state trade is a registered dealer sales tax on the turnover of such goods is to be realised in the State where the dealer effecting the sale is registered  para 2 In the instant case we find that while making the assessment order of 27 3 71 and holding that petitioner s turnover amounting to Rs 559 lakhs was not liable to tax in UP the STO relied upon a decision of this Court which as subsequently clarified in the case of Shinghal Bros  Co vs State did     not lay down that even in the case of a registered dealer effecting a subsequent sale in the course of inter state trade or commerce would not be liable to be taxed in the State where he is registered
Accordingly the STO applied the law laid down in this Court s earlier judgment to the facts of the present case under some misapprehension and it is not disputed that in subsequent cases this Court has very clearly laid down that in the case of a subsequent sale effected during the course of interstate trade and commerce by a regd
dealer the turnover of such sale
is to be assessed in the State where the dealer is registered
It is thus clear that there Was a mistake in the assessment order dr 27 3 71
The mistake was apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the STO applied the observations made by this Court in a case which had been decided on the footing that the concerned dealer was an unregistered dealer to a case where the dealer was admittedly a registered dealer
This mistake did not require any elaborate argu ment or prolonged debate on the merits or on the questions of law involved in the case
 In view of these categorical findings by
two courts that there was a clear and obvious mistake resulting from a mistake which had crept into the judgment of the High Court in the assessee s own case for the Ayear 1965 66 which the STO was bound to follow and could not ignore the mistake in the subsequent assessments could be rectified us 22 within the period of limitation of 3 years
Action could also have been taken us 21 under the UP Act for a reassessment where the period of limitation is 4 years
It is well settled that sections 21 and 22 are not mutually exclusive and the same action may be taken under either of the sections provided the conditions specified therein are satisfied
The notice us 22 was issued within the period of three years and there was yet another year to run for action us 21 and in these circumstances a technical point of this nature raised in a writ petition should not be countenanced
The main point that the sum of Rs 559 lakhs was taxable not being in dispute as stated by the High Court no assessee has a vested right to the forum or to succeed on mere technicalities
The contention that the notice us 22
and the order passed thereunder should have been communicated to the assessee within three years is wholly unsupported by any authority
Section 22 merely requires the order to be made within three years
No rights of the assessee are af fected by the passing of the order and it is only when the additional demand is served upon him under the provisions of 40 section 222 of the Act that the period of limitation for any appeal revision etc would begin to run
Authorities Rectification Glaring and obvious mistake of law  SC 53 Cal Weekly Notes 869 Cal A P
Date of order meaning of 34 STC 257 SC 46 ITR 529 All
SC Pb All
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA J
The appellant in Civil Appeal No 928 of 1975
Ms Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act referred to hereinafter as the Company and the six branches of the Company at Allahabad Moradabad Kanpur Varanasi Gorakhpur and Lucknow are the appellants in Civil Appeal No 929 of 1975
The Company carries on business as coal agents and is registered under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act 1948 and the with the Sales Tax Officer at Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh
We shall refer to these two statutes as the UP Act and the Central Act for the sake of brevity
The Company used to arrange supply of coal from collieries situate in West Bengal and Bihar to consumers in Uttar Pradesh
The collieries used to send the coal by rail and the railway receipts were pre pared either in the name of the Company or in the name of the consumer in Uttar Pradesh on whose behalf the order for supply of
coal was placed
The collieries sent the bills and invoices in respect of the coal despatched to Uttar Pradesh to the Company s head office in Calcutta the Compa ny forwarded the railway receipts to the consumers in cases where the receipts were in the names of the consumers and endorsed the receipts that were in the Company s name in favour of the consumers for whom the coal had been des patched
These two appeals brought on certificates of fitness granted by the Allahabad High Court arise out of two writ petitions filed in the High Court respectively by the Company and its aforesaid branches
The petition filed by the Company leading to Civil Appeal 928 is directed against an order made under section 22 of the UP Act giving rise to the question whether section 9 1  of the Central Act was applicable to the case enabling the State of Uttar Pradesh to levy and collect Central sales tax in respect of subsequent sales of coal effected by the Company to consumers in Uttar Pradesh by endorsement of the documents of title in the other writ petition filed by the Company s six branches the applicability of section 91 of the Central Act was 41 one of the points raised in the High Court but this was the only point urged before us in Civil Appeal No 929
The assessment year in question in Civil Appeal 928 is 1966 67 and that in Civil Appeal 929 is 1969 70
As the Company s appeal covers the question involved in the other case and raises two additional questions we shall state only the facts of Civil Appeal 928 to indicate how these questions arise
In the assessment year 1966 67 the Company filed quarterly returns showing its turnover of coal in two cate gories a turnover in cases where the railway receipts had been prepared in the names of the consumers amounting to Rs 300743902p
 and b turnover in cases where the railway receipts had been prepared in the name of the Company but subsequently endorsed in favour of the consumers in Uttar Pradesh amounting to Rs 55917232p
The dispute in this case relates to the amount of Rs 55917232p
which according to the Company could not be taxed in the State of Uttar Pradesh
Before We proceed further it would
be convenient to set out the relevant provisions of the two Acts
Taking the Central Act first section 2c de fines declared goods as the goods declared under section 14 to be of special importance in inter State trade or commerce
SectiOn 14 which declares certain goods to be of special importance in inter State trade or commerce mentions coal as one of them
Under section 3 a sale orpurchase of goods is deemed to take place in the course of inter State trade or commerce if the sale or pur chase a occasions the movement of goods from one State to another or b is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another
The sales we are concerned with in this case were of this second type
Sub section 1 of section 6 provides that subject to the other provisions of the Act every dealer shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter State trade or commerce
Sub section 2 of section 6 states that notwithstanding what is provided in sub section 1 any subsequent sale of goods effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods A to the Government or B to a registered dealer other than the Government if the goods are of the description referred to in sub section 3 of section 8 shall be exempt from tax under this Act
There are two provisos to this sub section but it is not necessary to refer to them
Section 71 requires every dealer liable to pay tax under this Act to apply for registration
Sub section 3 of section 7 provides that if the application is in order the prescribed authority shall register the applicant and grant to him a certificate of registration in the prescribed form which shall specify the class or classes of goods for the purpose of sub section 1 of section 8
Rule 3 of the Central Sales Tax Registration and Turnover Rules 1957 states that an application for registration under section 7 shall be made in Form A and Form A requires the purpose or purposes for which the goods or 5 1003 SCI76 42 casses of goods are purchased by the dealer in the course of interState trade or commerce to be speci fied as would appear from the Form resale  is one such purpose
Rule 5 1  of the Rules pro vides that the certificate of registration must be in Form B Section 81 provides that every dealer who in the course of inter State trade or commerce a sells to the Government any goods or b sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to
in sub sec tion 3 of this section shall be liable to pay tax under this Act at the rate of three per cent of his turnover
Subsection 2 of section 8 states that the tax payable by any dealer on his turnover relating to the sales of goods in the course of inter State trade or commerce which does not fall within sub section 1 shall be a in the case of declared goods at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropri ate State and b in the case of goods other than declared goods at the rate of ten per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State whichever is higher
The goods referred to in clause b of sub section 1 are specified in sub section 3 of this section as goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him
Sub section 4 of section 8 says that the provisions of sub section 1 shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a a declara tion duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority rule 121 of the Rules states inter alia that the declaration referred to in sub section 4 of section 8 shall be in Form C Clause b of sub section 4 is not relevant to the present purpose
Section 9 1 reads 9
1 Levy and collection of tax and penal ties
The tax payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter State trade or commerce whether such sales fall within clause a or clause b of section 3 shall be levied by the Government of India and the tax so levied shall be collected by that Government in accordance with the provisions of sub section 2 in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced Provided that in the case of a sale of goods during their movement from one State to another being a sale subsequent to the first sale in respect of the same goods the tax shall where such sale does not fall within sub section 2 of section 6 be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or as the case may be could have obtained the form prescribed the purposes of clause a of sub section 4 of section 8 in connection with the purchase of such good 43 The dispute in this case turns on whether the proviso to section 9 1  is applicable to the case
Reference may also be made to section 15 which provides the restrictions and conditions in regard to the tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State
The tax on sale or purchase of such goods inside the State
is not to exceed three per cent of the price thereof and such tax is not to be levied at more than one stage
The only provision of the UP Act which is relevant is section 22 which is in these terms 22
Rectification of mistakes
1 The assessing appellate revising or additional revis ing authority may at any time within three years from the date of any order passed by it rectify any mistake apparent on the record Provided that no such rectification which has the effect of enhancing the assessment shall be made unless the authority concerned has given notice to the dealer of his intention to do so and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard
2 Where such rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment the authority con cerned shall serve on the dealer a revised notice of demand in the prescribed form and therefrom all the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder shall apply as if such notice had been served in the first instance The Sales Tax Officer had accepted the contention that the turnover amounting to Rs 55917232p
was not taxable in Uttar Pradesh
In taking this view the Sales Tax Officer appears to have proceeded upon the observations in a Judg ment of the Allahabad High Court in the Company s own as sessment case for the year 2965 66
However in several subsequent decisions the High Court held that m a case where a registered dealer effected a second sale in the course of interState trade and commerce sales tax on the turnover was to be realised in the State where the dealer effecting the sale was registered
In one of these cases Ms Singhal  Co vs State  Ors1 it was pointed out that the earlier decision of the High Court had completely overlooked the proviso to section 92 of the Central Act
The Company being admittedly a registered dealer under the Central Act and liable to pay tax under that Act the Sales Tax Officer thought that there was an apparent error in the order of assessment made on March 27 1972 exempting the turnover amounting to Rs 55917232 p which in view of the proviso to section 91 of the Central Act was taxable in Uttar Pradesh
Accordingly he proposed to rectify the error under section 22 of the UP Act and on March 21 1974 he issued a notice to the Company requiring it to appear before him on March 25 1974
In response to the notice a representative 1 1973 UP Tax Cases 466 44 of the Company appeared
contended against the proposed rectification and also filed a written objection
The Sales Tax Officer recorded an order on March 26 1974 overruling the objections and rectified the order of assess ment dated March 27 1971
A copy of the order passed on March 26 1974 rectifying the mistake in the earlier assess ment order was served on the Company on March 31 1974
The Company challenged the order dated March 26 1974 by a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed giving rise to this appeal
Mr Nariman appearing for the appellants in these ap peals pressed the following grounds 1 the proviso to section 9 1  of the Cen tral Act has no application to goods declared to be of special importance in inter State sales or commerce under section 14 of the Central Act 2 section 22 of the UP Act was not applica ble as there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and 3 in any event the order made under section 22 of the
UP Act was barred by limitation
The argument
that the proviso to sub section 1 of section 9 does not apply to declared goods proceeds as follows Sub section 1 b and sub section 2a of sec tion 8 of the Central Act deal with two different types of goods
Sub section 1b speaks of goods of the descrip tion referred to in sub section 3 and subsection 2 relates to declared goods
Sub section 3 of section 8 only mentions the goods referred to in sub section 1b which are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale
Subsection 4 requires a declaration for the purposes of sub section 1 b and as sub section 1b does not speak of declared goods the declaration referred to in sub section 4 would not be necessary in the case of sale  or purchase of declared goods
We fail to see any valid distinction between declared goods and other goods for the purpose of the applicability of sub section 1  of section 8
The distinction was made by Mr Nariman inferentially from the Central Sales Tax Amendment Act 8 of 1963 which omitted with effect from April 1 1963 clause a from sub section 3 of section 8 as it stood prior to that date
Sub section 3 it may be recalled specifies the goods referred to in section 81b
Prior to April 1 1963 section 83listing such goods stated in clause a a in the case of declared goods are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration 45 of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him Clause b of section 83 then began with the words in the case of goods other than declared goods are   
By the same Amendment Act 8 of 1963 the opening words of clause b in the case of goods other than declared goods were consequentially omitted also with effect from April 1 1963
The omission of clause a is the basis of the argument that declared goods are altogether outside the purview of sub section 3 and therefore of sub section 1 of section 8 and as the declaration referred to in sub section 4 of section 8 was required where sub section 1 of the section was applicable it was not possible for the Company to obtain such a declaration
The contention seems to us untenable
Section 91 of the Central Act contains a general rule that tax payable by any dealer under this Act shall be levied and collected in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced
The proviso to section 91  qualifies this rule in the case of a subsequent sale which is not exempt from tax under section 62 and states that the tax on such subsequent sale would be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or could have obtained the form prescribed for the pur poses of section 8 4 a
No exemption under section 62 is claimed in this case
The declaration referred to in section 8 4 a is necessary for the dealer to avail of the benefit of the rate of tax mentioned in section 81 
Under section 73 the certificate of registration granted to a dealer has to specify the class or classes of goods for the purposes of section 8 1 
Rule 3 of the Central Sales Tax Registration and Turnover Rules 1957 requires an application for registration under section 7 to be made in Form A and Form A requires the purpose for which the goods or class of goods are purchased by the dealer to be specified resale is one of the purposes mentioned in Form A Thus section 73 makes no distinction between declared goods and other goods it is impossible to argue therefore that declared goods purchased by a dealer for resale need not be specified in his certificate of registration
Reading sub section 1 and sub section 3 of section 8 together it is clear that all sales to a registered dealer other than the Government whether of declared goods or other goods are covered by subsection 1 of section 8
Clause a was omitted from sub section 3 of section 8 by the Amendment Act 8 of 1963 presumably because it was considered unnec essary to retain clause a to deal with declared goods when clause b apparently covered all goods both declared and other than declared
The Act and the rules and the prescribed forms make No distinction between declared goods and other goods except for the purpose of the rate of tax
There is no valid reason why the Company could not have obtained a declaration in Form C as required by the proviso to section 91
It follows therefore that the order of assessment dated March 27 1971 was wrong as it held contrary to the proviso to section 91 that the sales in question were not taxable in the State of Uttar Pradesh where the Company was registered as a dealer under this Act
46 Another point sought to be made against the applicabili ty of the proviso to section 91 was tiffs
The proviso refers to the Form prescribed for the purpose of section 84a which should contain a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to
whom the goods were sold
It was argued that as the declaration was required only where the sale was to a registered dealer and as there was no finding in this case that the sales were to regis tered dealers the proviso was not attracted
It appears however that the Company never claimed before the Sales Tax Officer that the sales were not to registered dealers in the written objection filed before the Sales Tax Officer pursuant to the notice under section 22 of the UP Act the only ground taken was that no declaration was required to be filed in the case of declared goods
The point was taken for the first time in the writ petitions
We do not think we should allow this question which is one of fact to be raised at this stage
The next question is whether this error in the original order of assessment can be called an apparent error within the meaning of section 22 of the UP Act
There is no dispute that an apparent error means a patent mistake an error which one could point out without any elaborate argument
The order of assessment relating to the assess ment year in question 1966 67 was made on March 27 1971 by the Sales Tax Officer relying on a Judgment of the Alla habad High Court on a writ petition made by the Company questioning the validity of the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1965 66
In that Judgment the High Court held referring to the provisions of section 91  of the Act that the Sales tax authorities in the State of UP had No jurisdiction to make any assessment even if there was any inter State sale which could be liable to tax in the hands of the petitioner Company
The only State which could levy tax could be either Bihar or West Bengal
The impugned assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer Moradabad is therefore clearly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed
In this Judgment there is no reference to the proviso to section 91 
It appears from the Judgment under appeal that the High Court in a number of latter decisions held that in view of the proviso tax on a subsequent sale by a registered dealer in the course of inter State trade or commerce was to be levied and collected in the State where the dealer effecting the subsequent sale was registered
We are of the view that the order of as sessment dated March 27 1971 was apparently erroneous in that it failed to take into consideration the proviso to
section 91
It is not that the order dated March 27 1971 was in accordance with law when it was made but the subse quent decision of the High Court took a different view of the law
For the reasons we have given above it was pat ently erroneous when it was made but in view of the obser vations of the High Court in the case relating to the as sessment of an earlier year the Sales Tax Officer felt that he had to dispose of the assessment case for the year 1966 67 in the manner he did
The Judgment of the High Court which the Sales Tax Officer followed in making the assess ment for the year in question did not concern itself with the proviso to section 91
47 The next and the last question is whether the order dated March 22 1974 rectifying the assessment order made on March 27 1971 was barred by limitation
Under section 22 1  of the UP Act any mistake apparent on the record may be rectified at any time within three years from the date of the order
It is not disputed that the other requirements of section 22 have been complied with
The Company s representative appeared before the Sales Tax Officer pursuant to the notice served on them on March 25 1974 and the objections to the proposed rectification were heard
There is no dispute that the order rectifying the mistake was recorded by the Sales Tax Officer on March 26 1974 and this order was communicated to the appellant on March 31 1974 According to Mr Nariman the order of rectification must be held to have been made on March 31 1974 when it was communicated to the assessee which was beyond three years from the date of the order of assessment
Mr Nariman relied on the well known rule of fairplay that the rights of a party cannot be affected by an order until he has notice of it
In Raja Harish Chandra Rai Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another1 this Court considering the meaning of the words the date of the award occurring in section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 observed
The knowledge of the party affected by the award either actual or constructive being an essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the expression the date of the award used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively
In our opinion therefore it would be unreasonable to construe the words from the date of the Collector s award used in the proviso to section 18 in a literal or me chanical way
 where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned
 Following this decision this Court held in a subsequent ease under the  Madan Lal vs State of UP and others1 that the right of appeal given by section 17 of the Forest Act should be deemed to be the date when the party aggrieved by an order came to know of that order from which an appeal was sought to be preferred
But how have the Company s rights been affected in this case  1 1962 1 SCR 676
2 1975 3 SCC 779 48 Section 9 of the UP Act gives a right of appeal to any dealer objecting to any order made by the assessing authority other than an order mentioned in section 10 A within thirty days from the date of service of the copy of the order
In this case the Company was not affected by the order under section 22 being communicated to it after the expiry of three years from the date of the order because the limi tation for an appeal from that order did not begin to run before the communication of the order
The provisions of section 9 of the UP Act make that clear
The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed
Considering the circumstances we direct the par ties to bear their own costs here and in the High Court
VPS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Under section 3b  a sale or purchase of goods is deemed to take place in the course of inter State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase is effected by a transfer of documents of rifle to the goods during their movement from one State to another
Section 73  provides that on the application of the dealer the prescribed authority shall register the applicant and grant him a registration certificate which shall specify the class or classes of goods for the purpose of section 81 and the Form prescribed by r 3 Central Sales Tax Registration and Turnover Rules 1957 for application for registration requires the purposes for which the goods were purchased by the dealer to be specified resale being one such purpose
Section 81b provides that every dealer who in the course of inter State trade or commerce sells to a regis tered dealer other than the Government goods of the de scription referred to in sub section
3 shall be liable to pay 3_ of his turnover astax under the Act whereas under section 82 the tax payable with respect to goods which do not fall within sub section 1 shall be in the case of declared goods at the rate applicable to to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State and in the case of other goods 10 or the rate applicable in the State which ever is higher
Prior to April 1 1963 section 83 stated that the goods referred to in section 81b a in the case of declared goods are goods Of the class or classes speci fied in the certificate of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him and b in the case of goods other than declared goods are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registra tion of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him
 By the Amendment Act 8 of 1963 cl
a was omitted and the opening words in cl
b in the case of goods other than declared goods were also omitted so that after April 1 1963 the goods referred to in section 81b are specified in sub section
3 as goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registra tion of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him
Section 84a says that the provisions of section 81 shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter State
trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration in the prescribed
Form duly filled andsigned by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particu lars
Section 91 contains a general rule that the tax payable by any dealer on sales effected in the course of inter State trade or commerce would be levied by the Govern ment of India and collected in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced
The proviso to the sub section qualifies this rule in the case of a subsequent sale which is not exempted from tax under section 62
and states that the tax on such subsequent sale would be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or could have Obtained the Form prescribed for the purpose of section 84a
Coal is one of the declared goods having been declared under section 14 to be of special importance in inter State trade or commerce
The appellant was a Company carrying on business as coal agents and was registered in UP under the UP Sales Tax Act 1948 and the 
The appellant arranged for the supply of coal from collieries in W Bengal and Bihar to consumers in UP
The collieries sent the coal by 4 1003 SCI76 26 rail the railway receipts either in the name of theappel lant or in the name of the consumer in UP and sent the bills and invoices to the appellant s head office in Calcut ta
The appellant forwarded the railway receipts to the consumers in cases where the receipts were in the names of the consumers and in cases where the receipts were in the appellant s name also endorsed them in favour of the consum ers
There was thus in the latter cases a subsequent sale of goods in the course of inter State trade or commerce by the transfer of documents of title by the appellant to the consumers in UP
For the assessment year 1966 67 the appellant claimed that the turnover in cases where the railway receipts had been subsequently endorsed in favour of the consumers in UP was not taxable in UP
The Sales tax Officer by order dated March 27 1971 accepted the conten tion relying on a decision of the High Court
But in subsequent decisions the High Court held that in cases where a regisetred dealer effected a second sale in the course of inter State trade and commerce sales tax on the turnover was to be realised in the State where the dealer effecting the sale was registered and in one of the deci sions it was observed that the decision on which the Sales tax Officer relied had overlooked the proviso to section 91  of the Central Act
The Sales tax Officer accordingly proposed to rectify the error committed by him and after following the procedure prescribed for rectification of errors appar ent on the face of the record in section 22 of the UP Act passed an order on March 26 1974 rectifying the mistake and served it on the appellant on March 31 1974
The appellant challenged the order unsuccessfully in the High Court
In appeal to this Court it was contended 1 That the declaration prescribed under section 84a is necessary when section 81 was applicable but that after the omission in section 83 reference to declared goods  is omitted in that section so that when section 8 1b refers to the sale of goods mentioned in section 83 the reference is only to goods other than declared goods and hence when a dealer sells declared goods he could not have obtained the prescribed declaration and so the proviso to section 91 did not apply 2 Section 22 of the UP Act was not ap plicable as there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and 3 The order under section 22 was barred by limi tation because it was effective only when it was served on the appellant
Dismissing the appeal to this Court HELD 1 The 1971 assessment order was wrong
46 G The Act and the rules and the prescribed Forms make no distinction between declared goods and other goods except for the purpose of the rate of tax
Under section 73 the regis tration certificate granted to a dealer has to specify the class or classes of goods for the purposes of section 81 and it makes no distinction between declared goods and other goods
Sub sections 81 and 3 also show that all sales to a registered dealer other than the Government whether of declared goods or other goods are covered by section 81
Clause a was omitted from section 83 presumably because it was considered unnecessary to retain it when cl
b apparently covered all goods both declared and other than declared
The declaration referred to in section 84a is necessary for the dealer to avail himself of the benefit of the rate of tax mentioned in section 81
There is no valid reason why the appellant could not have obtained the decla ration in the prescribed Form as required by the proviso to section 91 
Since no claim for exemption under section 62 is made by the appellant the first order of assessment was contrary to the proviso of section 91 and the sales in question were taxable within the respondent State where the appel lant was registered as a dealer
45 D H 2 The 1971 order of assessment was patently errone ous in that it failed to take into consideration the proviso to section 91
Therefore it could be rectified under section 22 UP Act
46 G 27 3 The order rectifying the mistake was recorded with in 3 years of the date of the original order as required by section 22 of the UP Act
The fact that the order was communi cated to the appellant on March 31 1974 could not make any difference
The order of rectification is deemed to be made on the date of communication only for the purpose of count ing the period of limitation for filing the appeal under section 9 of the UP Act
Therefore in the instant case the appellant was not affected by the order under section 22 being communicated to it after the expiry not of 3 years from the date of the original order
47 B 48 B Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer 1962
3 SCR 676 and Madan Lal vs State of UP explained  distinguished