Jurisdictional objection overlooked under binding precedent can be corrected as an error apparent on the face of the record.

Failure to address a specifically raised jurisdictional objection based on binding precedent can constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal treated the omission to consider the challenge that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice, and to engage with the Mangali Impex line of authority, as a patent mistake because the issue went to the root of the matter. On that basis, the rectification power could be used to correct the final order, and the order was liable to be recalled for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-consideration of the jurisdictional challenge based on Mangali Impex and allied binding precedent amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall of the final order.

Analysis: The rectification applications were founded on the contention that the earlier final order did not deal with the specific objection that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice and did not record any finding on the applicability of Mangali Impex. The Tribunal treated this omission as a patent error because the issue had been specifically raised and went to the root of the matter. Relying on the settled principle that non-consideration of a binding judicial decision can amount to a mistake apparent from the record, the Tribunal held that the omission could be corrected in rectification. It further noted that a judicial decision operates retrospectively and that the primary contention of the appellants had been left unaddressed.

Conclusion: The omission was an error apparent on the face of the record, and the final order was liable to be recalled for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to consider a specifically raised jurisdictional objection supported by binding precedent constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and justifies recall under the rectification power.

---