Subsequent Supreme Court precedent can justify rectification where earlier disposal ignored later binding law.

A subsequent Supreme Court decision settling the law can constitute a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Where later binding precedent clarifies the legal position, the adjudicating authority must consider that decision while deciding the rectification application; refusal to do so is unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court could be taken into account while deciding an application for rectification under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, on the ground of mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The application sought rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order in light of a later Supreme Court decision on the charging of additional tax on inter-State sales. The Court applied the principle that where the Supreme Court has subsequently settled the law, failure to take that law into account may constitute a mistake apparent from the record for rectification purposes. On that basis, the Tribunal was required to consider the later binding decision before disposing of the rectification request.

Conclusion: Yes. The subsequent Supreme Court judgment had to be considered, and the Tribunal's refusal to do so was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent Supreme Court decision settling the law can constitute a mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of rectification, and the adjudicating authority must apply that later binding law when deciding the rectification application.

---