9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned CIT(A). 2. The contention of the learned Departmental Representative for the applicant is that since in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Budhraja Co. decided on 7th Sept., 1993, the Supreme Court has held that contractors engaged in construction business, were not manufacturers or producers of any articles or thing and since the order of the Supreme Court has retrospective operation, the order of the Tribunal is required to be brought in conformity with that of the Supreme Court. It is in that sense of the matter a mistake apparent from record is alleged to be existing in the order of the Tribunal. This argument is supported with the decision of Bombay High Court in Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs. V.S. Gaitonde, ITO (1962) 44 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does is that it interprets the law and states what the law has always been and must be understood to have been. Where an order is made by an authority on the basis of a particular decision, the reversal of such decision in further proceedings will justify a rectification of the order based on that decision. It has further been held that a binding decision rendered by a Court is always retrospective and the decision which is overruled was never the law. The overruling decision should be deemed to have been in force even on the day when the order sought to be rectified was passed. A subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or of the High Court has retrospective operation as in the case of subsequent legislation and overruling is always retros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which may conceivably admit of two views cannot make the subject-matter of rectification within the limited scope of s. 254(2) of the Act. In view of the conflict of opinion on the point of retrospective or prospective operation of a Supreme Court decision, the controversy cannot be settled either way in this application. Therefore, following Supreme Court decision in Volkart Bros. we decline to rectify the mistake which, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of N.C. Budhraja Co. may certainly be said to be there in the order of the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, we would dismiss the present applications. We are, however, of the opinion that the said Supreme Court decision is in essence and, in effect, directly on the poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
