The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the binding nature of the Supreme Court's judgment on all courts within the territory of India.

PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - These two revisions were heard together and were decided by this court by a judgment dated November 13, 1991. This court quashed the orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal dated March 30, 1990 relying on the decision given by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Pioneer Tanneries & Glue Works v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1991] 83 STC 1; [1991] UPTC 585, and held that since section 3AAAA has been declared ultra vires by this court, the order of remand to the assessing authority for determination of the liability in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment is incorrect. Thereafter aforesaid rectification applications under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 were filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on May 19, 1993. Subsequently the State Government promulgated the U.P. Ordinance No. 45 of 1991 and section 3 of the Ordinance, section 3AAAA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was substituted with retrospective effect from April 1, 1974. The said Ordinance has been replaced by Act No. 8 of 1992. An application after commencement of the Ordinance purported to be under section 22 of the Act has been filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, on the allegation that the infirmity pointed out by this court in the case of Pioneer Tanneries & Glue Works [1991] 83 STC 1; [1991] UPTC 585 has been removed with retrospective effect in section 3AAAA, as the amending Act contains validation clause. The validation clause is section 17 of the Amending Act. Therefore the present application to reconsider the order dated November 13, 1991 and decide under section 22 of the Act in the light of U.P. Ordinance No. 45 of 1991 has been filed. The said application is under consideration and Shri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel was heard in support of the application and Shri Kunwar Saxena, the learned counsel for the dealer opposed the application. Shri Saxena, the learned counsel for the dealer proposed that he does not want to file any counter-affidavit as no factual controversy is involved and only legal issues are involved.

The learned standing counsel for the Department strenuously contended that in view of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 1992 (replacing Ordinance No. 45 of 1991) there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated November 13, 1991 passed by this court and the mistake needs rectification. Elaborating his argument it was further pointed out that the judgment of this court given in the case of Pioneer Tanneries & Glue Works v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1991] 83 STC 1; [1991] UPTC 585 has not been approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Balaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 88 STC 98; [1993] UPTC 318, in para 54, has held that section 3AAAA both before and after 1992 amendment, represents a perfectly valid piece of legislation. It is relatable and fully warranted by entry No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. On the other hand the learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the application as such is not maintainable. He made reference to section 17 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 1992. Elaborating his argument it was submitted that the present case does not fall in any of the sub-sections of section 17 which is validation section. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.

Section 17 of the amending Act reads as follows :

"17. Validation. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in any judgment, decree or order of any court or authority, any notification issued or anything done or any action taken before the commencement of this section which conforms to the provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act shall be deemed to be and always to have been valid and lawful as if the provisions of this Act were in force at all materials times.

(2) Where before the commencement of this section any authority or court has, in any proceeding made, any assessment, levy or collection of any tax passed or an order impo