JAGMOHANDAS TRIBHUVANDAS KAPADIA Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for rectification made under Section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.

(2.) ON 14th August, 1958, this Tribunal delivered a judgment in Revision Application No. 93 of 1958 and dismissed the said application. Two points were taken in the application, as will appear from the judgment. It was contended that a reasonable opportunity was not given to the applicant by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax when a proceeding was pending before him. That contention was disposed of by the Tribunal which observed that the applicant had made seven applications for adjournment before the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax the last of which was not granted. On the 30th May, 1957, the learned pleader for the applicant appeared before the Assistant Collector. It was contended before the Tribunal that it was wrong for the Assistant Collector to fix the hearing on the day in question since 30th May, 1957, was a holiday. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the Assistant Collector's office was not closed on that day. If the Assistant Collector's office was not closed on that day then it is futile to argue that it was wrong for the Assistant Collector to fix the date of hearing on 30th May, 1957. Apart from that, assuming that the 30th May, 1957, was a holiday, since the pleader himself appeared before the Assistant Collector it is not possible to say that there was any denial of opportunity to the pleader for the applicant. Moreover, the Assistant Collector was sufficiently indulgent in giving every possible opportunity to the applicant since an adjournment was given to the applicant from time to time and it can never be urged that no reasonable opportunity was given to the applicant to produce his evidence. Another point was made before the Tribunal and it was that the authorities were required to go into the merits of the case of the applicant. It has been observed by the Tribunal that there was no obligation upon the authorities to go into the merits of a case and Mr. Ghael appearing for the applicant properly concedes that there was no statutory obligation which required the authority to go into the merits of the case. These two were the only points which were urged before the Tribunal and they were disposed of in the manner as indicated in the judgment.

(3.) NOW , to succeed in this application it is for the applicant to show that there was a mistake apparent from the record which is required to be corrected. Now, a mistake apparent from the record must evidently be a mistake which is plain. A mistake which is apparent after an elaborate argument is, we think, no mistake which can be said to be one apparent from; the record. To make a mistake apparent from the record must, therefore, be a mistake which is so plain that he who runs may read. Evidently, only two points were urged before the Tribunal and no exception is taken to the way in which those two points have been disposed of by this Tribunal. Can it then be said that a mistake is one apparent from the record ? Now, if a point is not urged before an authority it is not fair to say that the authority has committed a mistake as being one apparent from the record. No doubt authorities may commit mistakes, but mistakes occur only when points are presented to the authorities concerned. When a particular point is not taken before an authority it is not fair to him to assume that he has made a mistake.