Court and of this court and by simultaneously holding that the abovereferred Full Bench decision is not applicable. When apparently conflicting judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court are available, it is for the Tribunal to analyse the facts of the case and to apply the law declared by the Supreme Court and the High Court. It is quite possible that the Tribunal may commit a mistake in following one decision against another. If such a decision is wrong, it is only to be corrected by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction and not to be reversed by the Tribunal by changing their earlier opinion in rectification proceeding. It is clear from the two detailed orders namely, Exts.P1 and P2 passed by the Tribunal that the matter is capable of different conclusions and the High Court itself has expressed divergent view in different judgments. Therefore, the issue was highly debatable on which no rectification is permissible as held by the Supreme Court in the decision cited by counsel for the petitioner in 82 ITR 50 where the Supreme Court has held that a debatable point is not a mistake apprent from the record of the case. This view is supported by decision of the Supreme Court in VARDHMAN SPINNING MILL's case reported in 226 ITR 296 where the court has held that when two views are possible, the earlier decision cannot be subject matter of rectification. Therefore, I hold that the Tribunal wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 43 of the KGST Act to correct their earlier order. Ext.P2 order of rectification issued and produced in all the W.Ps. are accordingly set aside.
