ORDER H. L. DATTU, J. - A registered dealer doing business in sweetmeats and kharas is before this Court, inter alia, questioning the legality or otherwise of the notices issued by the assessing authority under section 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. By the said notices, the assessing authority intends to amend completed assessments for the aforesaid years. 2. Facts which require to, be noticed for the purpose of this case are Petitioner is a registered dealer doing business in sweetmeats and kharas borne on the files of the respondent-assessing authority. Petitioner in his business premises prepares food (sweetmeats and kharas), stocks it, exhibits for sale and sells it unlike in a place/premises, the business of the supply of meals or refreshments to the public or class of public for consumption in the premises is carried on. The assessing authority while framing assessments for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 granted composition benefit to the dealer under section 17(4) of the Act under a misapprehension that the dealer is a hotelier or a restaurateur by directing him to pay certain amounts at a particular rate depending on his total turnover in lieu of tax payable by him. The assessments for assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 had been completed on May 28, 1987, June 2, 1988 and on June 20, 1989, respectively. Pursuant to these orders, dealer has asserted that the amounts have been paid to the department. 3. The assessing authority now by an identical notice issued for all the, three assessment years issued on the same date intends to amend the completed assessments by invoking his powers under section 25-A of the Act solely relying upon the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner in No. CLR/CR/1804/87-88 dated August 11, 1988. The notice issued by assessing authority dated July 5, 1989 for assessment year 1986-87 reads as under : "K.S.T. 01804157/88-89 Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, XXII Circle, Bangalore, dated 5-7-1989. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 25-A OF KST ACT, 1957. The notice issued by assessing authority dated July 5, 1989 for assessment year 1986-87 reads as under : "K.S.T. 01804157/88-89 Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, XXII Circle, Bangalore, dated 5-7-1989. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 25-A OF KST ACT, 1957. Take notice that, while concluding the assessment for the year from April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987 the turnover pertaining to the sales of khara and sweets has been wrongly assessed under section 12(3) instead of 5 per cent since the amendment of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 with effect from April 1, 1986. Show cause as to why the assessment should not be revised as under : 1. G.T.O. Rs. 2,88,000.00 2. Less Rs. Nil ---------------------- 3. T.T.O. Rs. 2,88,000.00 ----------------------- Classification of T.T.O. T.O. Tax Sales of khara and sweets as per Second Schedule No. 152 amended as per revised classification of the CCT as per CLR/CR/1804/87-88 dated August 11, 1988 at 5 per cent. If you have any objections, to the proposed assessment under section 25-A you are called upon to file your written objections within 5 days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which the order will be passed accordingly." 4. Aggrieved by these notices issued for several years basing on the clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dealer is before this Court, without filing his objection before the assessing authority on the ground that the notices so issued are without jurisdiction, invalid and illegal. Respondents though served, have not choosen to file their objections to the assertions made by the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. A reading of the notice issued by the assessing authority under section 25-A of the Act, clearly gives an indication that the same has been done, pursuant to the circular instruction issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated August 11, 1988 to rectify an error in the assessment orders passed earlier. Section 25-A of the Act is the key provision authorising the assessing authority to amend any order passed by it under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. To constitute what constitutes mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and a patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. To constitute what constitutes mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and a patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law would not constitute a mistake apparent from record as observed by apex Court in Volkart Brothers' case [1971] 82 ITR 50. The authority cannot proceed to rectify an order even if it is wrong or subsequently becomes erroneous, unless finality of a wrong order is disturbed by a process known to law or by a process authorised by law. An order which was in accordance with law as it stood on that date when it was passed may become erroneous on account of retrospective amendment of law or a subsequent decision of the apex Court or jurisdictional High Court may render an order which was good when it was passed erroneous due to operation of a decision. The same principle will not apply in the case of circulars which have been issued subsequent to the completion of assessments. 6. The power of rectification conferred on the assessing authority under section 25-A of the Act is a quasi-judicial function. In the exercise of that power' the assessing authority cannot permit its jurisdiction to be influenced by dictation of another authority. It should exercise the power without the influence of higher authority. The assessing authority should not only determine the apparent mistake subjectively but also has to apply its mind to the facts of the case and cannot allow itself to be influenced or guided in the matter by other extraneous considerations. The assessing authority cannot act while exercising its powers under section 25-A of the Act, under instructions or directions or guidance of higher authority. 7. Keeping these first principles in view, let me now peep into the notices issued by the assessing authority for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, assessments completed on May 28, 1987, June 2, 1988 and June 20, 1989, respectively. For the years 1986-87 and 1987-88, assessments had been completed much earlier to circular instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in No. CLR/CR/1804/87-88 dated August 11, 1988 and this circular by no stretch of imagination will be in the nature of retrospective legislative amendment or overruling decision of a superior judicial authority. For the years 1986-87 and 1987-88, assessments had been completed much earlier to circular instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in No. CLR/CR/1804/87-88 dated August 11, 1988 and this circular by no stretch of imagination will be in the nature of retrospective legislative amendment or overruling decision of a superior judicial authority. Solely basing on such a circular, which is also prospective in its operation, the assessing authority could not have issued notices to rectify a mistake in the order granting composition benefit for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 without proper application of mind and without subjectively satisfying himself the apparent mistake m the record without being influenced by circular instructions of the Commissioner. Without going into other details raised and argued it can be safely said that the notices issued by the assessing authority for the aforesaid assessment years mainly relying on a subsequent circular of the Commissioner is totally without jurisdiction and accordingly invalid. 8. Even the notice issued for the assessment year 1988-89 suffers from many vices including the non-application of mind by the assessing authority before causing issuance of such notice. For this assessment year, the assessing authority had 'recorded a finding that the dealer is eligible for the composition benefit under section 17(4) of the Act. In a proceeding for rectification, the assessing authority cannot change his opinion merely relying upon a circular which was available but not noticed by the assessing authority on the date of the order to suggest that the petitioner was not eligible for composition benefit. Rectification could be only of a mistake apparent on the face of the record and not a new approach to the same facts which would be a case of change of opinion and the order granting composition benefit cannot be rectified. It is needless to say that there are other provisions under the Act, which would take care of such a situation to correct wrong or erroneous benefit if any granted to a dealer since a bare reading of relevant statutory provisions as well as judicial delectation thereon is that the error which empowers the revenue authorities to initiate rectification proceedings must be a mistake apparent from the record and the error must be something which appears to be "ex facie" and is incapable of arguments or debate. 9. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the question, whether the activity of the dealer would fall within the meaning of the expression hotel business or restaurant business and whether petitioner is a hotelier or restaurateur, these petitions are allowed only on the ground that the assessing authority could not have invoked the provisions under section 25-A of the Act to amend/withdraw the composition benefit granted earlier. Accordingly, notices dated July 5, 1989 issued under section 25-A of the Act are quashed as one without jurisdiction. 10. Petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petitions allowed.