JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by T. D. SUGLA, J. - These three references at the instance of the department involve the following two questions of law : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of the said section ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that as the assessment has been made and verification preceded the assessment, it must be presumed that the record on this point was verified, even though the liability to pay tax on these transactions was not disputed at the assessment stage ? The assessee, a company, is assessed both under the Bombay and Central Sales Tax Acts. While the assessments for the period from April 1, 1962 to March 31, 1963, under the Bombay and Central Sales Tax Acts were completed on October 21, 1967, the assessment to the Bombay Sales Tax Act for the period from April 1, 1961 to March 31, 1962, was completed on May 6, 1967. It is common ground that during the course of these three assessments the assessee did not claim exemption on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in K. G. Khosla and Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 17 STC 473. There was therefore no occasion for the assessee to place facts/materials that would have been necessary to support the claim before the Sales Tax Officer nor did the Sales Tax Officer examine the case from that point of view. The appeals were filed against the assessments which were dismissed on the ground of limitation. Further appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal also failed. The assessee had simultaneously filed applications for rectification under section 62 on November 8, 1968 on the ground that the assessments suffered from mistakes apparent from the record inasmuch as the assessee's sales amounting to Rs. 4,91,790, Rs. 14,21,414 and Rs. 60,006 for the respective assessment periods were sales in the course of imports as held by the Supreme Court in [1966] 17 STC 473 (K. G. Khosla and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) but were not so treated. 4,91,790, Rs. 14,21,414 and Rs. 60,006 for the respective assessment periods were sales in the course of imports as held by the Supreme Court in [1966] 17 STC 473 (K. G. Khosla and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) but were not so treated. The above judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on January 18, 1966 and was reported in "Sales Tax Cases" in May, 1966. Applications for rectification were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner. By order dated April 2, 1970, the Sales Tax Tribunal, however, allowed the appeals following this Court's decision in the case of National Rayan Corporation Ltd. v. G. R. Bahmani, Income-tax Officer [1965] 56 ITR 114, Madras High Court decision in Asea Electric (India) Private Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1969] 23 STC 160 and Mysore High Court decision in M. V. Govindaraju Chetty v. Commercial Tax Officer [1968] 22 STC 46. It was observed : "In my opinion, there is nothing to be investigated further than what ought to have been and was in fact investigated when the assessment came to be made. Only because the assessing authority was under an error he did not make that investigation in a legally correct manner, and, therefore, in my opinion, this case falls within the scope of section 62. The result is that both the second appeals are allowed and it is directed that rectification as sought by the party shall be made after such verification as the Sales Tax Officer feels necessary, the appellant-dealer being permitted to produce such documents in support of the rectification prayer which the assessing authority may call for." The Tribunal had initially rejected the applications filed for reference by the department. The department filed applications to this Court. The case had been stated by the Tribunal in compliance to the directions of this Court under section 61(2). Shri Thakur the learned counsel for the department and Shri Joshi the learned counsel who agreed to assist the court as amicus curiae have been heard at length. The controversy is very narrow. There is not much dispute about the facts. In any event this Court has to, in its reference jurisdiction, consider the questions of law referred to it on the basis of facts found by the Tribunal unless the findings themselves are questioned by raising appropriate questions of law. The controversy is very narrow. There is not much dispute about the facts. In any event this Court has to, in its reference jurisdiction, consider the questions of law referred to it on the basis of facts found by the Tribunal unless the findings themselves are questioned by raising appropriate questions of law. In the present case the assessee was ignorant of the Supreme Court decision in Khosla's case [1966] 17 STC 473. Admittedly, it did not, on the basis of that decision, claim exemption in respect of the sales, if any, in the course of imports. Facts and figures relevant in that connection were naturally not furnished. The Sales Tax Officer had no occasion to examine any material in connection therewith. While it cannot be disputed that the legal position as regards sales during the course of import has become clear, after the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, there is nothing on record far less apparent from the record to show that there were sales included in the local sales which qualified or will qualify for exemption in terms of Khosla's case [1966] 17 STC 473 (SC). The present case is, thus, not a case where the assessee had claimed certain sales to be exempt being sale in the course of import and produced material in support of the claim but the Sales Tax Officer had disallowed the claim taking a view contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla's case [1966] 17 STC 473. That would admittedly be a case of mistake apparent from the record inasmuch as after one knows the Supreme Court decision in Khosla's case [1966] 17 STC 473 and the set of facts on the assessee's assessment record, the mistake in not allowing the claim for exemption will become obvious. There may be another situation. The assessee claims exemption in respect of sales in the course of imports. It had no opportunity to furnish the necessary material in support of the claim as the Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim straightway by taking a view contrary to the view taken in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. There may be another situation. The assessee claims exemption in respect of sales in the course of imports. It had no opportunity to furnish the necessary material in support of the claim as the Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim straightway by taking a view contrary to the view taken in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. Here also one could possibly say that the mistake was not in entertaining the assessee's claim for exemption and if that mistake was apparent from the record, the power of rectification will be properly invoked and the power will not be confined to rectify that mistake only but will extend to passing of consequential orders. No doubt, the Tribunal in the last paragraph of its order stated that there was nothing to be investigated further than what ought to have been and was in fact investigated when the assessment came to be made. It cannot, however, be overlooked that the Tribunal in the next sentence stated that only because the assessing authority was in error and did not make that investigation in a legal manner it cannot be accepted that the case will not fall within the scope of section 62. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal had eventually directed the Sales Tax Officer that rectification as sought by the assessee shall be made after such verification as he may feel necessary and permitting time to the assessee to produce relevant materials in support of the claim for rectification. From the above discussion and the facts, it may have to be taken that both assessees and the Sales Tax Officer were not aware of the correct legal position at the time of these assessments were completed. For this very reason the assessee did not claim exemption on the basis of Khosla's case [1966] 17 STC 473 (SC) nor furnished facts and figures that would have been necessary in support of the claim if it was made. Reason may be any. Relevant facts and figures in support of the claim which is now being made through rectification applications are not on record. Reason may be any. Relevant facts and figures in support of the claim which is now being made through rectification applications are not on record. We do not agree with Shri Joshi that the word "record" should be construed as meaning not only the assessment record but also the books of accounts, various registers maintained and the sale invoices which the assessee might have brought to the Sales Tax Office at the time of assessment. On the face of it the suggestion is not acceptable to us. In any event no authority was cited by Shri Joshi in support of this contention. The leading decision on the meaning of the expression "mistake apparent from the record" is the Supreme Court decision in the case of M. K. Venkatachalam, Income-tax Officer v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143. It was held in that case that this expression was wider than the expression "error apparent on the face of the record" occurring in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The error could be an error of fact or an error of law. The expression, inter alia, covers all mistakes discoverable from a perusal of the whole evidence in the case as well as a mistake from an omission to apply certain provisions of the Act to the facts of the case. Thus in order to fall within the expression "mistake apparent from the record" it should be possible to gather the mistake from the record as it exists. A mistake which cannot be gathered from the record without requiring, for being shown to be a mistake, evidence extraneous to the record is not a mistake "apparent from the record" and cannot be corrected or rectified under such a provision. In other words, a mistake which appears to be ex facie and is incapable of argument or debate will be such a mistake. Where the assessee has not claimed deduction and naturally therefore no enquiry was made as to the facts relevant thereto, even though subsequently it may appear that the facts if investigated will show that the assessee is entitled to the exemption, the provisions for rectification may not attract. Where the assessee has not claimed deduction and naturally therefore no enquiry was made as to the facts relevant thereto, even though subsequently it may appear that the facts if investigated will show that the assessee is entitled to the exemption, the provisions for rectification may not attract. On the other hand, if there was a claim for exemption or even when there was no claim for exemption, but for some reason either as a result of enquiry by the assessing officer or some coincidence facts relevant to the claim for exemption have come on record, but the exemption was not allowed either because the claim was not made or for the reason that the law as was then understood, did not crystallise as a result of the Supreme Court judgment, the rectification provisions will attract. The test, thus, appears to us to be that if on facts as available on record it could be said that in view of the crystallised legal position the assessee was not allowed deduction which he was clearly entitled to, it will be a case of rectification but not otherwise. While failure to apply the correct law to a set of facts already on record will fall within the ambit of the expression "mistake apparent from the record", failure to apply the correct law to a set of facts which remain to be investigated will not fall within the said expression. It may be stated that the Tribunal had relied on three decisions in support of its conclusion. In our opinion these decisions do not really support the conclusion. This Court's judgment in [1965] 56 ITR 114 (National Rayan Corporation Ltd. v. G. R. Bahmani, Income-tax Officer), inter alia, lays down that jurisdiction to make an order for rectification depends upon the existence of mistake apparent from the record. A mistake is a mistake apparent from the record when it is glaring, obvious or self-evident. The Mysore High Court decision in [1968] 22 STC 46 (M. V. Govindaraju Chetty v. Commercial Tax Officer) makes it further clear that a mistake which is capable of being made out only upon further evidence or investigation of further facts can never be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record. In the present case the material relevant for establishing sales in the course of imports is admittedly not on record. In the present case the material relevant for establishing sales in the course of imports is admittedly not on record. The assessee will have to first establish that there are sales which will fall in that category and upon its establishing that set of facts will depend the further question whether the assessments suffer from a mistake apparent from the record in view of Khosla's decision [1966] 17 STC 473 (SC). This cannot certainly be the scope of rectification under section 62. In the case decided by the Madras High Court in [1969] 23 STC 160 [Asea Electric (India) Private Limited v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer], it is true that the orders of assessment were quashed and further investigation to find out whether sales included sales in the course of imports was directed. However, that was a decision in a writ petition, the scope of which is very much different from the scope of jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under section 62 of the Act. The facts in the present case do not at all indicate that there were sales in the course of imports. Unless that set of facts is established, it is difficult to hold that the assessments made without reference to Khosla's case [1966] 17 STC 473 (SC) suffer from mistakes far less mistakes apparent from the record. In the circumstances, our answer to the questions has to be and is in the negative and in favour of the department. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.