https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467566 A Tribunal may rectify an earlier order under section 254(2) when that order is inconsistent with a later Supreme Court declaration of law, because such declaration states the law as it always existed unless made prospective. Non-consideration of the binding legal position amounts to a mistake apparent from the record, and rectification in that situation is not a merits review. Applying this principle to delayed employee contributions to EPF and ESI, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue's rectification plea, recalled its earlier order, and directed fresh hearing to align the matter with the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services. en-us Fri, 02 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:59:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467566 A Tribunal may rectify an earlier order under section 254(2) when that order is inconsistent with a later Supreme Court declaration of law, because such declaration states the law as it always existed unless made prospective. Non-consideration of the binding legal position amounts to a mistake apparent from the record, and rectification in that situation is not a merits review. Applying this principle to delayed employee contributions to EPF and ESI, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue's rectification plea, recalled its earlier order, and directed fresh hearing to align the matter with the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467566