JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated December 30, 1995 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad dismissing the application filed under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 registered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 151 of 1992. If appears that the applicant is a "public limited company" incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of sugar molasses, straw board, packing and wrapping paper. For the assessment year 1977-78, the account books of the applicant were rejected and best judgment assessment order was framed by the assessing officer which was confirmed in appeal but the estimated turnover was reduced. The order of the first appellate authority was confirmed by the Tribunal in second appeal vide order dated June 26, 1992. The Tribunal has upheld the rejection of the account books on six grounds. Thereafter the present application under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was filed on the allegation that one of the grounds is not germane for the rejection of the account books. The said application has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the order under revision. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal, while rejecting the application under section 22 of the Act, has taken into consideration the fact that there is no error apparent on the face of record. The submission raised by the dealer with reference to acceptance of the account books was not found favour by the Tribunal and the second appeal was dismissed. It is not the case of the dealer that his submissions were not duly considered. The case of the dealer, on the other hand, in view of the certain pronouncement of this court was that one of the grounds that no account of the imported raw material and of U.P. purchases has been kept separately is not relevant for rejection of the account books. The Tribunal examined the said aspect of the case in its parent order while dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal examined the said aspect of the case in its parent order while dismissing the appeal. It may be noticed that rejection of the account books has been upheld by the Tribunal on six ground, therefore, even assuming for the sake of argument that if one of the grounds for rejection of the account books is not legally tenable, which is also not correct, the other remaining five grounds are sufficient to uphold the rejection of the account books. In the view of the matter, the order rejecting the account books by the Tribunal does not suffer with any error apparent on the face of record. Even otherwise also, the Tribunal has recorded a finding on the said issue that there appears to be different rulings on the point by the High Court and if one view has been taken by it, it cannot be said that there is error apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The error in the judgment cannot be subject-matter of rectification under section 22 of the Act is a well-settled proposition of law. If long drawn arguments are required to establish an error, such error cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. Viewed as above, I find no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed, but no order as to costs.