https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161984 Ignoring a binding Supreme Court decision can amount to an error apparent on the face of the record because Article 141 requires courts and subordinate tribunals to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court. However, review is limited and cannot operate as an appeal in disguise. Where the cited Supreme Court authority is factually distinguishable and the original decision rests on factual findings binding in reference jurisdiction, omission to refer to that authority does not justify review. The governing principle is that review lies only for a patent error, not for reappraisal of facts or a different view on the merits. en-us Thu, 06 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:57:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161984 Ignoring a binding Supreme Court decision can amount to an error apparent on the face of the record because Article 141 requires courts and subordinate tribunals to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court. However, review is limited and cannot operate as an appeal in disguise. Where the cited Supreme Court authority is factually distinguishable and the original decision rests on factual findings binding in reference jurisdiction, omission to refer to that authority does not justify review. The governing principle is that review lies only for a patent error, not for reappraisal of facts or a different view on the merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 06 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161984