JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar J. - The present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated August 11, 2005 relating to assessment year 1997-98 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by which, the application under section 22 of the Act has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a manufacturer of cement. Before the assessing authority, applicant claimed that in the manufacturing of cement 10 to 30 per cent fly ash had been used, therefore, in view of Notification No. 592 dated February 28, 1998 the turnover of such cement is exempted from the tax with effect from September 1, 1998. The claim of the applicant had not been accepted by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority. Applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal and a specific ground No. 37 had been taken in this regard. The appeal had been filed on other several points. The Tribunal vide order dated June 5, 2004 decided the appeal. It appears that ground No. 37 has not been considered therefore, applicant moved an application under section 22 of the Act, before the Tribunal on the ground that the ground No. 37 has not been considered which related to the turnover of cement manufactured by using of fly ash. The Tribunal though, accepted that such ground has not been considered but rejected the application on the ground that only mistake apparent on the face of record could be rectified under section 22 of the Act and in a case where lengthy argument is required and the issue is debatable, such mistake cannot be rectified under section 22 of the Act and accordingly dismissed the application. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal is bound to consider the grounds taken in the grounds of appeal, which has been argued at the time of hearing. He submitted that the ground No. 37 of the grounds of appeal had been argued at the time of hearing of the appeal which is clear from the written submissions. The Tribunal has not considered such ground, therefore, there was apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal, which requires rectification. He submitted that the ground No. 37 of the grounds of appeal had been argued at the time of hearing of the appeal which is clear from the written submissions. The Tribunal has not considered such ground, therefore, there was apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal, which requires rectification. He submitted that whether the ground No. 37 has been considered or not, is not debatable issue or requires any lengthy argument thus, Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application under section 22 of the Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of this court in the cases of Amarnath Shital Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1993] UPTC 60 and Kuldip Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1999] STI 524 (All). The learned standing counsel submitted that under section 22 of the Act only mistake apparent on the face of record, can be rectified, while consideration of ground No. 37 involves lengthy argument and investigation of fact, therefore, Tribunal has rightly rejected the application under section 22 of the Act. I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. It appears that the Tribunal has confused with the two different situations which arises in the present case; one is whether non-consideration of the grounds taken in the grounds of appeal, amounts to mistake apparent on the face of record and secondly, if the ground has been considered and has not been properly dealt with, whether the rectification is possible. It is true that where the issue is considered, it may not be properly considered and rectification is sought which needs lengthy argument, investigation of fact, it may not be a mistake which could be rectified, but if a ground has been raised in the grounds of appeal and argued before the Tribunal, but has not been considered in the order, it does not need any argument or investigation of fact. In the present case, Tribunal itself observed that the ground No. 37 has not been considered without requiring any argument and investigation. It is settled principle of law that the Tribunal is duty-bound to consider the grounds taken in the grounds of appeal and argued at the time of hearing of the appeal. In my opinion, if such ground has not been dealt with in the order, it amounts to apparent mistake. It is settled principle of law that the Tribunal is duty-bound to consider the grounds taken in the grounds of appeal and argued at the time of hearing of the appeal. In my opinion, if such ground has not been dealt with in the order, it amounts to apparent mistake. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this court in the cases of Amarnath Shital Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 60, and Kuldip Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1999] STI 524 (All), in which a similar view has been taken. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is directed to decide ground No. 37 of the grounds of appeal after hearing both the parties. In the result, revision is allowed. Order dated August 11, 2005 is set aside. Application under section 22 of the Act is allowed and the Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the ground No. 37 of the grounds of appeal afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.