https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781631 HC dismissed the writ petition, holding the application under Section 74 was not a genuine rectification but an attempt to reopen adjudicated issues via an improper forum. Section 74 permits correction of patent, self-evident errors by the same authority within two years and cannot substitute one view for another. The impugned order related to separate proceedings by a different authority; the doctrine of merger did not assist. As an efficacious statutory appellate remedy existed and no illegality, perversity or breach of natural justice was shown, interference under Article 226 was refused. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781631 HC dismissed the writ petition, holding the application under Section 74 was not a genuine rectification but an attempt to reopen adjudicated issues via an improper forum. Section 74 permits correction of patent, self-evident errors by the same authority within two years and cannot substitute one view for another. The impugned order related to separate proceedings by a different authority; the doctrine of merger did not assist. As an efficacious statutory appellate remedy existed and no illegality, perversity or breach of natural justice was shown, interference under Article 226 was refused. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781631