When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yer/employee contributions to certain funds, the subsequent appellate trajectory through the Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT, and a miscellaneous application by Revenue invoking a later decision of the Supreme Court. The Court's determination engages precedents on review/recall jurisprudence, the comparative ambit of Section 254(2) and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and the legal effect of subsequent judicial decisions on finalized tribunal orders. Key Legal Issues * Whether a subsequent decision of a superior court can constitute a "mistake apparent from the record" u/s 254(2) permitting the ITAT to recall its earlier order that had attained finality between the parties. * The correct ambit of Section 254(2) vis-`a-vis Order XLVII Rule 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ought to the Tribunal's notice at the time of the order. The Court emphasises that Saurashtra is fact-specific and dealt with a prior decision that existed contemporaneously with the original order. * Reliance Telecom (Constitutional Bench precedent) [2021 (12) TMI 211 - Supreme Court]- holds that Section 254(2) is akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and emphasises the limited corrective scope of Section 254(2). * Gracemac Corporation [2023 (8) TMI 98 - SC Order], Beghar Foundation [2021 (2) TMI 504 - Supreme Court], K.L. Rathi Steels [2023 (3) TMI 1503 - Supreme Court] (and subsequent three-Judge authority) - these decisions underscore that a change in law or a subsequent overruling by a superior court is not, by itself, a ground for re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 254(2) is limited in scope and not a device for re-hearing an appeal or revisiting a decision simply because a later judgement alters the law. Key Holdings and Reasoning The Court held that: * A subsequent ruling of a Court cannot be a ground for invoking Section 254(2). Section 254(2) is confined to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order. * Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. is distinguishable: it dealt with a prior binding jurisdictional decision not placed before the tribunal and does not support recall based on subsequent authorities. * The ITAT's reliance on a later Supreme Court decision to recall its order dated 5 September 2022 was impermissible; that recall was s....