Binding precedent can unsettle an earlier judgment, leading to its setting aside when the controlling ruling applies.

A judgment cannot be sustained where its legal basis has already been overruled by a later binding decision. The Court applied the controlling precedent, found that the impugned judgment had proceeded on an earlier view that no longer survived, and therefore set it aside. The appeals were allowed because the decision under challenge could not stand once the authoritative ruling was applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the judgment under appeal was liable to be set aside in view of the earlier decision overruling the basis on which it proceeded.

Analysis: The Court noted that the judgment under appeal had already been referred to and overruled in an earlier decision. In light of that authoritative ruling, the impugned judgment could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The judgment under appeal was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned decision did not survive after the controlling precedent was applied, resulting in success for the appellant Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the judgment under appeal stands overruled by a subsequent binding decision, it is liable to be set aside.

---