Binding Supreme Court law in rectification can amount to a mistake apparent from the record when earlier orders ignore it.

A later Supreme Court ruling settling the law can be considered in rectification or review proceedings, and failure to apply binding law may constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal's refusal to entertain rectification on the ground that the subsequent Supreme Court judgment was not such a mistake was too technical and inconsistent with the principle that law declared by the Supreme Court is binding. The rectification application therefore should not have been rejected on that basis, and the impugned order was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether rectification under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be declined on the ground that a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court was not a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The Court held that a later pronouncement of the Supreme Court settling the law could be taken into account in rectification or review proceedings and that ignoring such binding law would amount to a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal's approach was found to be overly technical and contrary to the settled legal position that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding and must be applied.

Conclusion: The rectification application could not have been rejected on that ground, and the impugned order was unsustainable.

---