https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794934 Section 254(2) permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record and does not provide a route to review an earlier Tribunal order because a later Supreme Court decision changes the legal position. The text distinguishes this limited jurisdiction from review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and notes that limitation applies to miscellaneous applications under Section 254(2). In disputes involving delayed Provident Fund and ESI payments, the later decision in Checkmate Services was treated as an impermissible basis for reopening concluded orders; the High Court's approach was subsequently left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:26:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794934 Section 254(2) permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record and does not provide a route to review an earlier Tribunal order because a later Supreme Court decision changes the legal position. The text distinguishes this limited jurisdiction from review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and notes that limitation applies to miscellaneous applications under Section 254(2). In disputes involving delayed Provident Fund and ESI payments, the later decision in Checkmate Services was treated as an impermissible basis for reopening concluded orders; the High Court's approach was subsequently left undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794934