| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | G. S. Pannu (VP), Ravish Sood (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 254(2) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Condonation of delay, retrospective operation |
| COUNSEL: | Amit Khatiwala, Jitendra Sanghavi |
| DATE: | August 20, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 6, 2019 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2003-04 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 254(2): (i) Delay of 420 days in filing appeal due to subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is a valid ground for condonation of delay (ii) An order can be said to suffer from a "mistake apparent from the record" if it contrary to a subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court. Courts do not make any new law; they only clarify the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Such legal position clarified by Courts has retrospective effect as the law was always the same | |
It is also well – settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a ‘new rule’ but to maintain and expound the ‘old one’. In other words, the Judges do not make law; they only discover or find the correct law.The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make a new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite sometime, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect, clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood
Recent Comments