TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly, already opened by the Trade Tax Officer on 21.06.2007 - Held that: - the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and others [2013 (4) TMI 736 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon where it was held that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. No error in the order under review - petition dismissed - d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consignment was, admittedly, already opened by the Trade Tax Officer on 21.06.2007. Learned counsel for the appellant had invited attention of this Court towards para 32.1 of the paper book, but the Court failed to appreciate it. Learned counsel for the appellant had also raised argument in light of finding of the Commissioner that no penalty can be imposed upon the appellant in terms of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no scope for this Court to review the order. In support of his submission he has cited a decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others [(1997) 8 SCC 715]. 7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 8. Again, in Smt. Meera Bhanjia Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995 (1) SCC 170) while quoting with approval a passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Sharma Ors. (1979 (4) SCC 389), this Court once again held that review proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the case of Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and others [(2013) 8 SCC 337]. 24. This Court, on numerous occasions, had deliberated upon the very same issue, arriving at the conclusion that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. We have considered the rival submissions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
