JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru J. - Since the controversy involved in both the aforesaid revisions, being Trade Tax Revision No. 163 of 2002 (for the assessment year 1994-95) and Trade Tax Revision No. 164 of 2002 (for the assessment year 1995-96) is identical, the same is being decided by a common judgment and order treating the Trade Tax Revision No. 163 of 2002 as a leading one. Heard learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel appearing for the State. The Trade Tax Revision No. 163 of 2002 has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 against the order of the Tribunal dated February 8, 2000. The questions of law referred to are hereunder : "(1) Whether the insulating varnish which is used exclusively in electrical industry for strengthening the resistance of electrical motors and transformers, etc., and has no other use, is liable to be taxed as an accessory to electrical goods under the Notification No. 5784, dated July 31, 1992 ? (2) Whether the Trade Tax Officer was justifying in passing the order under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in completely overlooking the other facts and materials on record, including the decisions of the apex court for upholding the order passed under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act ? (3) Whether the decision of this honourable court in S.T.R. No. 770 of 1997, decided on September 22, 1998 does not lay down the correct law and requires reconsideration ? (4) Whether the Notification No. 5784, dated July 31, 1992 having specifically included the accessories of electrical goods and equipments; hence in view of the clarification issued by the different State Government and in view of the common parlance meaning of the insulating varnish, it is not taxable under the general entry of 'paints and varnishes' ?" The proceedings arise under an application made by the Department under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). Section 22 of the Act reads as under : "22. Rectification of mistakes. Section 22 of the Act reads as under : "22. Rectification of mistakes. - (1) Any officer or authority, or the Tribunal or the High Court may, 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 it under this Act, apparent on the record, within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified : Provided that where an application under this sub-section has been made within such period of three years, it may be disposed of even beyond such period : Provided further that no such rectification, as has the effect of enhancing the assessment, penalty, fees or other dues shall be made unless reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the dealer or other person likely to be affected by such enhancement. (2) Where such rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment, the assessing authority concerned shall serve on the dealer a revised notice of demand in the prescribed form and therefrom all the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder shall apply, as if such notice had been served in the first instance." The assessee was carrying on the business of sales of electrical insulating varnish and thinner which are used exclusively for insulation of electrical motors. The assessee was paying tax on items at 10 per cent in view of a decision of the Madras High Court which was holding the field. In the case of Mariamman Industries v. State of Tamil Nadu [1986] 61 STC 358, the Madras High Court has held that the item was to be treated as an adhesive and was to be charged to tax because it had special use. Subsequently, the Allahabad High Court rendered a decision on September 22, 1998 in S.T.R. No. 770 of 1997, Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Chandra Electrical Sales for the assessment year 1992-93. This case is reported in [1998] UPTC 1156. The Allahabad High Court held that the insulating varnish and thinner sold by the applicant is taxable under the entry "paints and varnishes" at 15 per cent. Consequently, the Department moved an application under section 22 of the Act seeking a rectification that earlier assessment order passed in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 should be rectified. The Allahabad High Court held that the insulating varnish and thinner sold by the applicant is taxable under the entry "paints and varnishes" at 15 per cent. Consequently, the Department moved an application under section 22 of the Act seeking a rectification that earlier assessment order passed in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 should be rectified. Accordingly, an order was passed on November 10, 1998 under section 22 of the Act making a charge at 15 per cent tax on the entry of "paint and varnishes" for the assessee. Against the order of the assessing authority passed under section 22 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal under section 9 and although the assessee took up various pleas with regard to entry, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on June 19, 1999. The assessee thereafter filed a second appeal under section 10 which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated February 8, 2000, which is assailed in the present revision. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued that it is not within the scope of section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act to make or pass order on issues which are debatable. He has argued that the jurisdiction under section 22 is confined to make corrections and mistakes which are apparent on the face of the order. He has argued that on the date when the assessment for the assessment year 1994-95 was made, the judgment of this court was no where in sight and in fact it was the Madras High Court judgment which was holding the field. He has argued that the issue whether varnish and paints manufactured by the assessee was to be treated as a varnish as it is commonly understand as an adhesive was definitely a debatable question and could not be considered as mistake which is "apparent on the record" and therefore, such an issue could not have been the subject-matter of an application under section 22 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on a decision of the apex court in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. [2007] 10 VST 751; [2008] 2 SCC 439. He has referred specifically to paragraph 3 of the judgment. The court refers to paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the said judgement : "12. He has referred specifically to paragraph 3 of the judgment. The court refers to paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the said judgement : "12. A bare look at section 22 of the Act makes it clear that a mistake apparent from the record is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 22, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. 'Mistake' means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. 'Apparent' means visible; capable of being seen, obvious; plain. It means 'open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous, manifest, obvious, seeming'. A mistake which can be rectified under section 22 is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependant on argument or elaboration. 13. In our view rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. What the Revenue intends to do in the present case is precisely the substitution of the order which according to us is not permissible under the provisions of section 22 and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in holding that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record. In order to bring an application under section 22, the mistake must be 'apparent' from the record. Section 22 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under section 22 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. 14. As observed by this court in Master Construction Co. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under section 22 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. 14. As observed by this court in Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360 (SC), an error which is apparent from record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. 15. 'Mistake' is an ordinary word but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical error which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate is discerned. The word 'mistake' is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract the power to rectify under section 22, it is not sufficient if there is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications." The learned standing counsel has argued that the application made by the Department under section 22 of the Act was liable to be allowed as this court has passed a judgment for the assessment year 1992-93 in which it has come to the conclusion that the item in dispute is to be taxed as varnish and paints at 15 per cent. However, having heard learned counsel for both the sides and having perused the matters on record, I am not inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned standing counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue was clearly debatable as to whether the item produced by the assessee was "varnish and paints" or an "adhesive", for which different rates of tax had been prescribed. There was no mistake which was apparent on the face which could have been rectified under section 22 of the Act. In view of the apex court decision also cited above, it is patently clear that the issue being a debatable one it was not within the scope or the jurisdiction of the application under section 22 of the Act to make such an rectification. The order passed by the Tribunal is thus set aside. Both the revisions are allowed. In respect of Trade Tax Revision No. 162 of 2002, for the assessment year 1995-96, the assessee shall pay tax at the rate which was determined by the Madras High Court, as assessed in the original assessment order.