https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164640 A later validating amendment and the Supreme Court's declaration that section 3AAAA was valid made the earlier contrary view unsustainable, so rectification under section 22 was maintainable and the Revenue succeeded on that issue. Section 11(8) was treated as leaving the High Court as the decision-maker on the legal question, with the Tribunal only to pass consequential orders, so the court retained jurisdiction and objections based on functus officio and merger failed. Because the earlier judgment conflicted with binding Supreme Court law under Article 141, the inconsistency amounted to a rectifiable error apparent on the record, and the earlier judgment was recalled while the revisions were revived. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164640 A later validating amendment and the Supreme Court's declaration that section 3AAAA was valid made the earlier contrary view unsustainable, so rectification under section 22 was maintainable and the Revenue succeeded on that issue. Section 11(8) was treated as leaving the High Court as the decision-maker on the legal question, with the Tribunal only to pass consequential orders, so the court retained jurisdiction and objections based on functus officio and merger failed. Because the earlier judgment conflicted with binding Supreme Court law under Article 141, the inconsistency amounted to a rectifiable error apparent on the record, and the earlier judgment was recalled while the revisions were revived. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164640