Authorities must follow Tribunal's orders for same issues in subsequent years. Ignoring judgments for rectification not acceptable.

The High Court held that the authorities must adhere to the Tribunal's previous order on a similar issue for subsequent assessment years by the same assessee. Failure to do so constitutes an error apparent on the record. The Court emphasized that ignoring relevant judgments when brought to the authority's attention justifies rectification. The assertion that accepting the petitioner's contention would amount to revision, not rectification, was deemed incorrect. The Court set aside the communication rejecting the rectification petitions and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitions, granting relief to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Ext.P7 order and Ext.P9 communication rejecting rectification petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in processing raw fish and exporting frozen fish, challenged Ext.P7 order and Ext.P9 communication rejecting their rectification petition. The petitioner claimed their activity did not attract service tax as it amounted to manufacturing. The adjudicating authorities issued a show-cause notice proposing to treat the activity as a service, which the Tribunal later found to be manufacturing, excluding it from service tax. However, for subsequent periods, the authorities confirmed demands of service tax, leading to appeals by the petitioner. Despite the Tribunal's previous order, the 3rd respondent assessed the petitioner for service tax, prompting the petitioner to file rectification petitions (Ext.P8 and Ext.P8(a)).

The High Court noted that the Tribunal's order (Ext.P1) on an identical issue for an earlier assessment year should be adhered to by authorities subordinate to the Tribunal when raised by the same assessee for a subsequent year. Failure to consider binding decisions would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. Citing the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, the Court emphasized that omission to consider a relevant judgment when brought to the authority's notice justifies rectification.

The Court highlighted that the 3rd respondent's assertion that accepting the petitioner's contention would amount to revision, not rectification, was incorrect. Bringing the Tribunal's order to the appellate authority's notice, which was then disregarded, constituted grounds for rectification. Refusal to consider the rectification petitions (Ext.P8 and Ext.P8(a)) by the 3rd respondent was deemed legally incorrect. Consequently, the Court set aside Ext.P9 and directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the rectification petitions and pass fresh orders after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, granting relief to the petitioner.

---