Binding precedent on rectification claims must be applied on merits, not denied solely because the claimant was not a party earlier.

A rectification claim cannot be rejected merely because the claimant was not a party to the earlier decision if the later claim falls within that ruling's scope on the same statutory issue. The authority must examine whether the benefit of the earlier judgment applies on the facts and decide the application afresh by applying that precedent on merits. Rejection solely on party-status grounds was unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered with an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the application for rectification under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier decision was sustainable, and whether the authority was bound to reconsider the claim in the light of that earlier decision.

Analysis: The application was founded on an earlier judgment of the same Court dealing with the same issue arising under the same statutory provision. The authority declined relief mainly because the petitioner had not been a party to that case and also on the view that the provision had not been quashed. That approach was found unsustainable because the relevant enquiry was whether the petitioner's case fell within the scope and ambit of the earlier decision and whether the benefit flowing from that ruling applied to the petitioner on the facts. The authority was therefore required to examine the claim afresh by applying the earlier decision to the petitioner's case.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application was unsustainable. The matter was required to be reconsidered afresh in the light of the earlier decision, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the authority for fresh decision on the rectification application.

Ratio Decidendi: When a later claim falls within the scope of an earlier binding decision on the same statutory issue, the authority must apply that decision on merits and cannot refuse relief merely because the claimant was not a party to the earlier case.

---