JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the order dated January 5, 1991 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, on Misc. Application No. 21 of 1992 for the assessment year 1977-78 in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1983 decided on October 16, 1989.
2. The present revision arises out of application filed under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 before the Tribunal on behalf of the department in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1983.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of the present revision lies in narrow compass. The respondent is a registered dealer and was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of vegetable ghee, oil, etc. After rejection of books of account the assessment order was framed on March 22, 1980. The said order was set aside by the first appellate authority by order dated July 9, 1980 and the case was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh assessment with certain directions. The Sales Tax Officer framed fresh assessment order by order dated December 28, 1982. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate authority. Thereafter the dealer-opposite party filed aforesaid second appeal before the Tribunal. A new point regarding limitation for making reassessment after the order of remand was raised before the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that copy of the order of remand was received on any day earlier than July 15, 1980 and no assessment order was framed within one year from July 15, 1980. The final assessment order was passed on December 28, 1982. The Tribunal repelled the argument raised on behalf of the department that in view of the U.P. Amending Act namely U.P. Act No. 16 of 1983, period of limitation for completion of assessment after remand has been extended up to December 31, 1982, the order passed by the assessing authority on December 28, 1982 is perfectly within the period of limitation. It took the view that the said Amending Act will have no application as the period of one year had already expired. Although it agreed that no such plea was raised earlier by the dealer and the procedural amendment is retrospective, but it will not reopen the matter which have become closed or dead. Ultimately the Tribunal took a view that reassessment after remand can be made under the U.P. Act No. 16 of 1983 only in those cases where the matter has not become dead or closed on October 15, 1981. The department thereafter filed an application under Section 22 of the Act for rectification of the above mistake in the order of the Tribunal on the ground that it suffered from an error apparent on the face of record. The said application has been rejected by the Tribunal by order under revision.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is relevant to notice here the amendment made in Section 21 of the Act by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 1983). Section 3 of the Amending Act reads as under:
3. Amendment of Section 21.--In Section 21 of the Principal Act,-
(a) In Sub-section (2) in the proviso thereto, for the word and figures "March 31, 1982", the word and figures "December, 31, 1982" shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted....
5. The Tribunal rejected the rectification application and held that since the amendment was introduced by the U.P. Act No. 16 of 1983 only on September 21, 1983 by which date the matter has become closed or dead by October 15, 1981, the same cannot be revived by its subsequent amendment. The second ground taken by the Tribunal is that it was not rectifiable mistake. The only obvious and patent error, i.e., apparent on the face of record, error can be rectified under Section 22 of the Act.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of Additional Commissioner (Legal) v. Jyoti Traders [1999] 112 STC 277 : [1999] UPTC 45, in support of his submission that the view of the Tribunal is legally incorrect. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has interpreted Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as amended by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991. By amending Act the limitation for completion of assessment order was enhanced from four years to eight years after taking sanction by the Sales Tax Officer from the Commissioner of Sales Tax. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chopra Diesel and Spare v. State of U.P. [1994] UPTG 115, held that the Commissioner cannot take recourse to the above provision providing extension of the period under Sub-section (2) of Section 21 up to eight years, as the original period prescribed for completion of assessment as four years expired on March 31, 1990. Assessment year 1985-86 was involved and the period for making assessment came to an end on March 31, 1990. The aforesaid amending Act by which period was extended came into force on February 19, 1991. The day on which the amending Act came into force the period of limitation having been expired it was held that the extended period of limitation as provided in the Amending Act will have no application. This judgment has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Additional Commissioner (Legal) v. Jyoti Traders [1999] 112 STC 277 : [1999] UPTC 45. The Supreme Court thus not approved the view that if the period of limitation has expired for completing the assessment, the extended period provided under the Amending Act would not apply. To put it differently the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has taken a view that the period of limitation for completing assessment as provided in the amending Act will hold the field.
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of Jyoti Traders [1999] 112 STC 277 : [1999] UPTC 45 law has been made clear. The said judgment is binding and is the law of the land in view of article 141 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the above by the amending Act 16 of 1983 full retrospective effect was given by Section 3 of the amending Act. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal holding otherwise cannot be accepted.
8. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the dealer-opposite party laid such much emphasis that the day on which the application under Section 22 of the Act was filed, and decided by the Tribunal the law as interpreted by this Court was holding the field. Therefore, there was no error apparent on the face of record and as such legal error, if any, in the judgment cannot be rectified under Section 22 of the Act. Be that as it may it cannot be disputed that today the law of the land is the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Traders [1999] 112 STC 277 : [1999] UPTC 45, which is binding on all courts and the authorities. The revision is continuation of rectification proceeding and as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shanker Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Kisanji Dattatraya Bapat AIR 1970 SC1, has held that revisional jurisdiction is a part and parcel of appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey AIR 1932 PC 165. Therefore today it cannot be disputed that there is an error apparent on the face of record, in the order of the Tribunal.
9. Then the question arises as to whether such an error, which became apparent in view of subsequent judgment of higher court can be rectified under Section 22 of the Act. This controversy is also no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1976] 38 STC 593 : [1976] UPTC 671 with reference to Section 22 of the Act has held that in such circumstances Section 22 of the Act is applicable and the original assessment order can be rectified.
10. Then learned Counsel for the dealer-opposite party submitted that the department did challenge the order of the Tribunal passed in the second appeal by filing S.T.R. No. 292 of 1990 and the said revision has been dismissed by judgment dated October 22, 1997. A photostat copy of judgment delivered in S.T.R. No. 292 of 1990 was produced during the course of argument. The entire judgment of the High Court is quoted below:
In view of judgment reported in Chopra Diesel and Spare v. State of U.P. [1994] UPTC 115, the revision fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
11. A bare perusal of the above judgment of the High Court shows that the revision was dismissed on the basis of Chopra Diesel and Spare [1994] UPTC 115. This judgment has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Traders [1999] 112 STC 277 : [1999] UPTC 45. Therefore the very basis of judgment of this Court has gone and is no longer in existence. Elaborating the argument learned Counsel submitted that the order of the Tribunal having been merged in the judgment of the High Court in the above case, therefore, application for rectification is not maintainable.
12. The only question involved before this Court in S.T.R. No. 292 of 1990 was as to whether the period of limitation to complete the assessment after the order of remand has expired or not. This Court by dismissing the revision has confirmed the order of the Tribunal that the period of limitation had expired. The scope of rectification application is also same namely whether the period of limitation to complete the assessment after the remand has expired or not. Therefore, I am of the view that the principle of merger will apply in this case. The order of the Tribunal has been merged in to the order of this Court passed in S.T.R. No. 292 of 1990. In such circumstances as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vijay Int. Udyog [1985] 59 STC 49 : [1985] UPTC 131, this would have been proper that both the revisions should have been heard by this Court together. But the difficulty is that it is not possible for me to rectify the judgment of this Court passed in S.T. R. No. 292 of 1990 as the period of limitation of three years prescribed under Section 22 of the Act has already expired. In the result the present rectification application has become infructuous.
In the result there is no force in the revision. The revision is dismissed.