https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163489 Rectification of an advance ruling is confined to correcting a patent mistake apparent from the record. A claim that the ruling overlooked a Government notification, where that basis was not raised in the original proceeding, does not justify rectification and cannot be used as a substitute for a fresh adjudication. Supervisory interference under article 227 is also limited and is not warranted in the absence of a manifest error. The rejection of the rectification application was upheld, and the writ petition failed. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:15:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163489 Rectification of an advance ruling is confined to correcting a patent mistake apparent from the record. A claim that the ruling overlooked a Government notification, where that basis was not raised in the original proceeding, does not justify rectification and cannot be used as a substitute for a fresh adjudication. Supervisory interference under article 227 is also limited and is not warranted in the absence of a manifest error. The rejection of the rectification application was upheld, and the writ petition failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163489