( 1 ) THIS is a batch of six revision petitions preferred by an Assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act 1957. The particulars of the assessment are as follows : ( 2 ) THE question for decision is, whether there was any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record in order to confer jurisdiction on the Commercial Tax Offcer to rectify the original orders of assessments. We are clearly of the opinion that there was no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeals. . ( 3 ) BEFORE the Commercial Tax Officer who made the assessment orders the Assessee contended that the turnovers in question were not exigible to tax on the ground that the deliveries of wool were made by the members of the Assessee which is a Co-operative Society and that there was no purchase by the Society. The Commercial Tax Officer examined the records and account books of the Assessee and rejected that contention of the Assessee. The Commercial Tax Officer held that in the instant case there were purchases of wool by the Assessee. The remedy of the assessee if it was aggrieved by the said orders, was to prefer appeals provided under the statute. The Assessee did not prefer any appeals. Relying on a decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in some other matter passed in the case of a different Assessee, the petitioner made applications for rectification which were allowed by a common order dated 13-8-1969. The Commercial Tax Officer who made the order of rectification does not state in his order that he was able to find out any mistake on the face of the records that were already in the file. The basis of the order was that in some other case the Tribunal had taken a contrary view. That, in our opinion, does not justify an order of rectification in exercise of the powers under Rule 38. ( 4 ) SRI B. V. Katageri, leaned Counsel for the Assessee raised a fresh ground namely, that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is not the authority competent to set aside the order of rectification, but it is the Commissioner. That, in our opinion, does not justify an order of rectification in exercise of the powers under Rule 38. ( 4 ) SRI B. V. Katageri, leaned Counsel for the Assessee raised a fresh ground namely, that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is not the authority competent to set aside the order of rectification, but it is the Commissioner. Such a ground does not appear to have been , urged before the Tribunal as could be seen on a perusal of the order and the grounds of appeal. The Assessee cannot be permitted to raise a ground which was not urged before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, these revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150. One set. The learned Senior High Court Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo for appearance in STRP. Nos. 65 to 59 of 1973 within one week from today. --- *** --- .