R. K. GULATI, J. These are two connected sales tax revisions which are directed against a common order dated March 28, 1989 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Division Bench, Agra. 2. The dispute arises out of rectification proceedings under section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, now known as the U. P. Trade Tax Act (for short, "the Act") and pertains to the assessment year 1977-78. S. T. R. No. 573 of 1989 arises out of the assessment proceedings under the U. P. Sales Tax Act while the other Revision No. 574 of 1989 arises from the assessment proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act. It is not in dispute that the assessments both in respect of the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts for the year in question were made by a common order dated August 28, 1980 on best judgment. The turnover under the U. P. Sales Tax Act was assessed at Rs. 10,000 against the admitted turnover of Rs. 9,191. 04 and at Rs. 5,25,000 under the Central Sales Tax Act against the turnover of Rs. 4,75,566. 26 as per account books of the assessee. After the completion of assessments aforesaid, the assessing authority initiated proceedings under section 22 of the Act and served notices in September, 1981, upon the assessee, stating, inter alia, that in the assessment order dated August 28, 1980 by an inadvertence the interest was left out to be charged on the admitted amount of tax which the assessee was liable to pay on the turnovers which were reflected from the books of account, inasmuch as, the assessee had not filed any return for the year in dispute both under the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts and had also not deposited the admitted tax within the prescribed time. 3. The notices under section 22 of the Act were contested by the assessee by filing written objections. However, the assessing authority overruled the objections and by two separate orders carried out the rectification, requiring the assessee to pay interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem with effect from April 1, 1976 on the amount of tax due under law and was required to be paid by the assessee on the turnovers as per its account books exigible to tax under the two Acts aforesaid. The orders of rectification were upheld in the first instance by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax and thereafter, in second appeals by the Sales Tax Tribunal, which were filed by the assessee. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that under section 22 of the Act where the interest had not been charged in the original assessment order, the same cannot be levied by way of rectification of the assessment order. 5. I have considered the submission carefully but in my opinion, there is no substance in it. There is no dispute that no returns were filed at all nor the admitted tax was paid under the two Acts aforesaid. The assessee was brought on record as a result of the survey which was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on August 27, 1980. From the account books produced during the survey it transpired that the assessee had a taxable turnover of Rs. 9,191. 47 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and a turnover of Rs. 4,75,565. 26 under the Central Sales Tax Act. It was on account of that survey that the assessment order dated August 28, 1980 was passed of which reference has been made earlier. 6. Now sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act, inter alia, provides that the tax admittedly payable shall be deposited within the time prescribed, failing which simple interest at the rate of two per cent per mensem shall become due and be payable on the unpaid amount with effect from the day immediately following the last date prescribed till the date of payment of such amount and nothing contained in section 7 shall prevent or have the effect of postponing the liability to such interest. The Explanation attached to that sub-section envisages that for the purposes of that sub-section the tax admittedly payable means the tax which is payable under the Act on turnover of sales or, as the case may be, the turnover of purchases, or of both, as disclosed in the accounts maintained by the dealer or admitted by him in any return or processing under the Act, whichever is greater, or if no accounts were maintained then according to the estimate of the dealer. 7. Section 22 of the Act speaks of rectification of mistakes. 7. Section 22 of the Act speaks of rectification of mistakes. It says, inter alia, that any officer or authority on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person rectify any mistake in any order passed by him or is apparent on the record within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified. 8. In Jeet Mal Ram Gopal v. Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Aligarh Range, Aligarh [1975] 36 STC 305, a Division Bench of this Court has held that section 22 of the Act which provides for the rectification of the mistakes by the sales tax authorities it does not specify the nature or character of the mistake beyond saying that it should be apparent on the record. It also does not predicate the nature and extent of the scrutiny that will make the mistake apparent, provided the scrutiny is confined to the record as it is. The section further does not provide for rectification because of discovery of new material. There is no dispute that under section 22 mistakes of fact as well as law, both can rectified. 9. In Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. State of U. P. [1973] 32 STC 496 the Supreme Court has held that the liability to pay interest is automatic and arises by operation of law in case the default is committed. The amount of interest cannot be predicted till such time the payment of tax is made. But on the other hand, it was known to the dealer that what would be the amount of interest in case they do not pay the full tax for the period. 10. As already stated in the instant case, the interest began to accrue on the unpaid tax from the date it was due under the Act. The assessee was liable to pay interest for default in the payment of tax due under the Act. The assessing authority failed to assess the interest along with the tax that was determined under the assessment order aforesaid, though it was obligatory on his part to do so. Therefore, the assessing authority under law had every right and jurisdiction to charge interest as the assessee had defaulted in the payment and deposit of the admitted tax liability on its taxable turnover reflected from the account books. Therefore, the assessing authority under law had every right and jurisdiction to charge interest as the assessee had defaulted in the payment and deposit of the admitted tax liability on its taxable turnover reflected from the account books. On account of the failure of the assessing authority to charge the interest inadvertently in terms of section 8 (1) of the Act, there existed a clear mistake which was apparent on the face of the record and was amenable to rectification within the purview of section 22 of the Act. 11. In Bhauram Jodhraj & Co. v. State of Assam [1989] 75 STC 23, a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court has held that failure to charge interest at the time of assessment was an error apparent on the face of the record and the interest could be levied by rectification of the assessment order after due notice under section 12 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, a provision synonymous in so far rectification of mistake was concerned, to section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 with which we are concerned. In that case also no returns were submitted and the tax was also not deposited under the relevant provision of the Assam Act. The provision about the payment of interest under the Act was contained in section 22-A which is somewhat similar to sub-section (1) of section 8 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships of the Division Bench observed as under : ". . . . . . . the actual tax payable by the dealer and the interest that accrued for such non-payment of tax makes an order on a total assessment of tax which is recoverable from the dealer for a particular period or quarter as the case may be. The levy of interest as it accrues in case of default in payment of tax is also a part of tax because it is a statutory obligation on the part of the dealer to pay interest in case of default. The levy of interest as it accrues in case of default in payment of tax is also a part of tax because it is a statutory obligation on the part of the dealer to pay interest in case of default. Therefore, omission to assess the interest while it had accrued at the time of passing the order of assessment by the assessing authority can only be done by way of taking recourse to rectification proceeding under section 12 of the Act and to make the dealer liable for payment of total amount of due tax and its interest in case of default. " 12. In Ram Sahai Dal Mills. Varanasi v. Sales Tax officer, Varanasi 1982 UPTC 600 where there was mistake in calculation of interest, a Division Bench of this Court held that such a mistake could be rectified under section 22 of the Act. 13. Section 22 of the Act confers power to correct mistakes which are "apparent on the record". The expression "apparent" as it has been held in several decisions, must be something which appears ex facie and is incapable of argument or debate. Where mandatory provisions of a statute in framing an order of assessment are overlooked, it would constitute a mistake "apparent on the record" an obvious or self evident mistake and it can be rectified within the ambit of section 22 of the Act. 14. In Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. Ramjibhai Hirjibhai & Sons [1977] 110 ITR 411 (Guj), the facts were that the Income-tax Officer in completing the assessment failed to charge interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Later on the assessment order was rectified under section 154 of that Act. On a reference a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held : ". . . . . . . . that on a plain reading of clause (iii) of the proviso to section 139 (1) (b) it was clear that there was an obligation on the Income-tax Officer to levy penal interest in the manner stated in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of the clause, if the assessee failed to furnish his return before the date as extended under clause (i) or (ii) of the proviso. . . . . . . . . Therefore, the Income-tax Officer had the power to initiate rectification proceedings and levy penal interest as he did, since the omission on his part at the time of the original assessment was an error apparent from the record, because the relevant provision of penal interest is a mandatory provision of law. " 15. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tiwary Bechar and Co. [1987] 165 ITR 78 (Pat) where the Income-tax Officer had failed to charge interest under section 139 (8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that the Income-tax Officer was bound to levy interest under those provisions and his failure to exercise that jurisdiction was an error apparent from the record which could be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The same High Court in another case reported as Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar-I, Patna v. Ashok Trading Company [1986] 160 ITR 663 (Pat), has expressed an identical view where it has been held that the Income-tax Officer was bound to levy interest and having not exercised that jurisdiction, there was clearly an error apparent on the face of record. The rectification proceedings initiated under section 154 were valid. 16. In view of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the omission to levy interest could not have been rectified taking resort to section 22 of the Act, cannot be accepted. The contention is accordingly rejected. 17. No other point was urged before this Court. 18. Both the revisions are devoid of merit and are accordingly, dismissed. Petitions dismissed. .