ORDER D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. - Writ petitioner who is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, who took the chance of applying to the Commissioner under section 4 of the Act, inviting his advance ruling on the scope of exercise of tax liability in respect of the product known as plastic woven sacks. It appears, the Commissioner - second respondent did give his ruling which was not to the liking of the petitioner, who on realising that the ruling given has not taken note of certain Government notification, sought for rectification of the ruling by another application purporting to be under rule 27(Q) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The Commissioner having responded with an endorsement that the application is not maintainable, the present writ petition. Submission of Sri Chythanya, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ruling given by the Commissioner is clearly in ignorance of the Government notification under which the petitioner claims certain benefit; that the ruling being one without taking into consideration the notification, the petitioner had applied for rectification of the ruling invoking rule 27(Q) of the KST Rules, but the Commissioner has outright rejected it indicating that he has no jurisdiction, and therefore, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that undoubtedly the Commissioner has jurisdiction to rectify his order or ruling rendered even under section 4 of the Act, as rule 27(Q) covers such a situation also. It is not necessary for me to consider this argument for the reason that the jurisdiction that the petitioner has invoked before the Commissioner is a rectification jurisdiction and unless the order is one which patently suffers from a mistake borne out from the record, assuming that it is wrong or irregular there is no scope for invoking the rectification provisions. If the petitioner had sought for the ruling of the Commissioner seeking for clarifying the rate of tax in respect of a particular product and at that time had pointed out that he is claiming the benefit of a Government notification vis-a-vis the product and if he had sought for a ruling on such premise and if the Commissioner had given a ruling independent of the Government notification perhaps that would have been a case of a mistake, but in the present case even as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not the case of the petitioner himself before the Commissioner and after the Commissioner has rendered the ruling, petitioner it appears has got wise and he is now seeking to bring it to the notice of the Commissioner regarding the applicability of Government notification for the purpose of claiming this benefit. It is open to the petitioner to seek for another ruling, if so advised, in the context of Government notification the benefit of which notification the petitioner seeks on the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the Commissioner is right in rejecting the application seeking review of his ruling, which was filed under rule 27(Q) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. It is open to the petitioner to work out his rights as and when the occasion arises and claim such benefits. Such grounds do not compel me to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any merit for exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.