Rectification power and binding Supreme Court precedent: High Court recalled its earlier view after validating amendment confirmed the levy.

A later validating amendment and the Supreme Court's declaration that section 3AAAA was valid made the earlier contrary view unsustainable, so rectification under section 22 was maintainable and the Revenue succeeded on that issue. Section 11(8) was treated as leaving the High Court as the decision-maker on the legal question, with the Tribunal only to pass consequential orders, so the court retained jurisdiction and objections based on functus officio and merger failed. Because the earlier judgment conflicted with binding Supreme Court law under Article 141, the inconsistency amounted to a rectifiable error apparent on the record, and the earlier judgment was recalled while the revisions were revived.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rectification applications filed under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 were maintainable in view of the validating amendment and the Supreme Court's later declaration that section 3AAAA was valid; (ii) whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the earlier order had directed transmission of the decision to the Tribunal under section 11(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, or because the High Court had become functus officio; and (iii) whether the earlier judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall.

Issue (i): whether the rectification applications filed under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 were maintainable in view of the validating amendment and the Supreme Court's later declaration that section 3AAAA was valid.

Analysis: The validating amendment and the Supreme Court's decision established that the levy under section 3AAAA was legally sustainable. Once the basis of the earlier contrary view disappeared, the court could invoke its rectification power under section 22 to correct the inconsistency. The court also treated the challenge to the form of the application as technical and held that a wrong or imperfect prayer did not defeat relief where the power existed under the statute.

Conclusion: The applications under section 22 were maintainable and justified; this issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the earlier order had directed transmission of the decision to the Tribunal under section 11(8) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, or because the High Court had become functus officio.

Analysis: Section 11(8) was read as making the High Court the decision-making authority on the question of law, with the Tribunal only required to pass consequential orders in conformity with that decision. The direction to send a copy of the judgment to the Tribunal did not transfer the final judicial act to the Tribunal or extinguish the High Court's power to correct its own order. The doctrine of merger was rejected because an inferior authority's order does not absorb or override the superior court's order.

Conclusion: The High Court retained jurisdiction to entertain the rectification applications, and the objections based on section 11(8), functus officio, and merger failed.

Issue (iii): whether the earlier judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall.

Analysis: In view of the binding effect of the Supreme Court's later decision and Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the earlier view of invalidity could not stand. The inconsistency with the Supreme Court's ruling amounted to a rectifiable error, and the court applied its earlier approach that such inconsistency may be corrected under the rectification provision.

Conclusion: The earlier judgment was recalled as containing a rectifiable error apparent on the record.

Final Conclusion: The rectification applications succeeded, the contrary earlier judgment was withdrawn from operation, and the revisions were revived for consideration on the remaining issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later binding Supreme Court ruling removes the legal basis of an earlier contrary High Court decision, the High Court may use its statutory rectification power to correct the inconsistency even if a validating amendment and consequential transmission to the Tribunal are also in issue.

---