JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J. - Raising a short controversy, the present revision has been filed by the Department questioning the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated August 2, 1999 passed in Second Appeal No. 238 of 1993 relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 (Central) whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has set aside the proceeding initiated against the dealer - opposite party under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the ground that proper course would have been to initiate the proceeding under section 21 of the Act, instead. The dealer - opposite party is carrying on the business of purchase and sale of silica sand. For the assessment year in question, its disclosed turnover was accepted and the Central sales tax was determined at Rs. 8,53,205.30. The assessing officer, while framing the assessment order, found that all the above sales were covered by form C and, therefore, it levied tax at the concessional rate of four per cent. Subsequently, on verification of form C it was found that there is no form C in respect of Rs. 7,871.70. Another fact which was found is that form C No. 72714 for the amount of Rs. 42,378.96 is defective inasmuch as no amount has been mentioned in the said form. It, therefore, initiated proceeding under section 22 of the Act for rectification of the mistake in the assessment order and sought to rectify the mistake by levying tax on Rs. 7,871.70 and withdrawing the benefit given in respect of form C No. 72714 to the dealer - opposite party. In reply to the show-cause notice, the dealer - opposite party could not state anything with regard to shortfall of form C with regard to Rs. 7,871.70. The assessing officer by the order dated November 20, 1990 found that on the amount of Rs. 50,250.66, the dealer - opposite party is liable to pay differential rate of tax at the rate of six per cent in addition to the tax levied at four per cent in the original assessment order. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully in first appeal. In further appeal by the dealer - opposite party, the Tribunal by the order under revision was of the view that the proper course would have to initiate proceeding under section 21 of the Act instead of under section 22. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully in first appeal. In further appeal by the dealer - opposite party, the Tribunal by the order under revision was of the view that the proper course would have to initiate proceeding under section 21 of the Act instead of under section 22. In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been sought to be raised : "(a) Whether Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to quash the order passed under section 22 of the Act despite the fact that the question of tax liability was not debatable and Tribunal has accepted the fact that the dealer was liable to pay tax ? (b) Whether Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the mistake in the assessment order was not apparent on the face of record despite the fact that is quite apparent from the records available that the amount of Rs. 5,250.66 was not covered by form C and the exemption was wrongly allowed in the assessment order ?" The Tribunal, as noticed above, has allowed the appeal on a short ground that on the facts of the present case, the proceeding should have been initiated for reassessment under section 21 of the Act. Reliance has been placed by it on its earlier decisions in this regard. The said view taken by the Tribunal is not legally sound. A conjoint reading of sections 21 and 22 of the Act shows that they operate in different fields. In some cases there may be overlapping but that does not mean that if the proceeding can be initiated under section 21 of the Act, the proceeding cannot be initiated under section 22. If the ingredients and parameters of section 22 are fulfilled in a given case, the initiation of proceeding under the said section cannot be said to be unjustified. Under section 22 of the Act, a mistake in any order can be rectified by the authority concerned if the mistake is apparent on the record within the period specified therein. For invoking section 22, besides other things the requirement is that there should be mistake on the record and the said mistake should be apparent. The mistake may be either of law or fact. For invoking section 22, besides other things the requirement is that there should be mistake on the record and the said mistake should be apparent. The mistake may be either of law or fact. In the original assessment proceeding, the assessing authority allowed the concessional rate of tax to the dealer - opposite party on the basis of forms C filed by it. Subsequently, it transpired that forms C filed by the dealer - opposite party do not cover the entire gamut of transactions. It has been found by the authorities which has not been set aside by the Tribunal that there is no form for sales worth Rs. 7,871.70. In other words, there is a shortfall of form for the aforestated amount. No explanation could be furnished in this regard by the dealer - opposite party. In this view of the matter, the order of the assessing authority asking the dealer - opposite party to pay further tax at the rate of six per cent in addition to the tax already paid at the rate of four per cent in proceedings under section 22 of the Act is perfectly justified. This is a mistake which is apparent from the record and no long drawn argument is required. The order of the assessing authority rectifying its mistake on this score is, therefore, perfectly justified. The authority rectifying its mistake on this score is, therefore, perfectly justified. Another mistake which was sought to be rectified by the assessing authority was that in C form No. 72714, the amount is not mentioned. Therefore, according to it, the said form is invalid. An explanation was submitted by the dealer - opposite party in this regard. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party before this court submits that figure was mentioned in a separate sheet of paper which was annexed with the form. No adverse comment on the said explanation has been made by the assessing officer in his order passed under section 22 of the Act. It is well-settled that if there is some defect in the form, opportunity should be given to get the defect removed. In this view of the matter, the mistake in the form appears to be a trivial one and the interest of the Revenue is not at all affected in any manner and the levy of tax at concessional rate was justified. In this view of the matter, the mistake in the form appears to be a trivial one and the interest of the Revenue is not at all affected in any manner and the levy of tax at concessional rate was justified. Since the matter is an old one, it is not desirable to remit the matter back to the Tribunal and to afford opportunity to the dealer - opposite party to get the form C rectified. The order of the Tribunal with regard to C form No. 72714 is sustained though for different reason. Viewed as above, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part and the order of the Tribunal is modified accordingly and it is held that the dealer - opposite party is liable to pay the differential rate of tax at the rate of six per cent on a sum of Rs. 7,871.70. With regard to the rest, there is no force in the revision. No order as to costs.