Review for error apparent may lie when a binding Supreme Court decision is ignored, but not on factually distinguishable authority.

Ignoring a binding Supreme Court decision can amount to an error apparent on the face of the record because Article 141 requires courts and subordinate tribunals to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court. However, review is limited and cannot operate as an appeal in disguise. Where the cited Supreme Court authority is factually distinguishable and the original decision rests on factual findings binding in reference jurisdiction, omission to refer to that authority does not justify review. The governing principle is that review lies only for a patent error, not for reappraisal of facts or a different view on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to notice an existing decision of the Supreme Court bearing on the controversy amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify review; (ii) Whether, on the facts found by the Board of Revenue, the Revenue had made out a case for review of the Full Bench order.

Issue (i): Whether failure to notice an existing decision of the Supreme Court bearing on the controversy amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify review.

Analysis: A contrary view taken by a court while ignoring a binding decision of the Supreme Court amounts to non-application of the correct law and can constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The binding force of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 requires the High Court and subordinate courts to follow it, and disregard of such law may justify review where the error is obvious without elaborate reasoning.

Conclusion: In principle, failure to notice an applicable Supreme Court decision can amount to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts found by the Board of Revenue, the Revenue had made out a case for review of the Full Bench order.

Analysis: The review power is limited and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The Court found that the Supreme Court decision relied on by the Revenue was distinguishable on facts, while the Full Bench had proceeded on factual findings that the canteen was a service institution and that such findings could not be reappraised in reference jurisdiction. In that setting, omission to refer to the cited decision did not produce an error warranting review.

Conclusion: The Revenue had not made out a case for review.

Final Conclusion: The review was not maintainable on the merits asserted, because the impugned order did not suffer from an apparent error and the reference was rightly answered in favour of the assessee on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: Ignoring a binding Supreme Court decision may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, but review will not lie where the omitted authority is factually distinguishable and the original decision rests on findings of fact binding in reference jurisdiction.

---