( 1 ) BY this sales tax revision the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , has raised the following two questions for the decision of this Court:

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, was legally justified to decide the appeal involving the disputed tax of more than Rs. 10,000 by a single Member Bench instead of two Members Bench? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the assessment to order passed under Section 21, which corrected the inadvertent mistake or omission committed by the assessing authority into the original assessment order was based on change of opinion, so not legally sustainable, without going into the facts of the case fully?

( 2 ) IN the assessment year 1972-73, S/s. Madhu Chemical Works, Bareilly, was engaged in manufacture and sale of saccharin. Originally under Rule 41 (5) the disclosed turnover of the assessee was taxed at 3. 5 per cent. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales tax Act (for short "the Act") were initiated against the assessee and the turnover was assessed to tax at 7 per cent. The just