Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
GST - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights September 2024 Year 2024 This

A review application is maintainable on (i) discovery of new and ...


Stringent rules govern review petitions: No rehashing old arguments allowed; only new evidence or glaring errors merit reconsideration.

Case Laws     GST

September 7, 2024

A review application is maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court held that review cannot be done unless a material error manifestly apparent on the face of the order would result in miscarriage of justice. Review proceedings are strictly confined to the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A party cannot repeat old arguments under the guise of a review petition. The power of review is distinct from appellate power to correct errors. In the present case, the HC found no error apparent on the record to warrant interference with its earlier order holding that the respondent is entitled to receive original non-relied documents u/s 67(3) of CGST Act and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules 2017. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Petition challenging validity of reopening assessment u/s 148 dismissed. No final order passed, jurisdictional issue raised for first time in review petition. Statutory...

  2. The case involves a review petition filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to recall an order that dismissed an appeal due to the absence of substantial...

  3. Seeking review - error apparent on the face of record or not - The High Court held that, these documents were not part of the pleadings. Review does not mean rehearing...

  4. Authority to undertake a review contemplated under Section 67(5) of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005 - since the regular Chairman of the Tribunal is not functioning,...

  5. The High Court considered the maintainability of a review petition based on a subsequent judgment and the condonation of a 619-day delay in filing the civil review...

  6. Power of tribunal to review application - It is the well laid down proposition of law that ‘in the absence of any power of ‘Review’ or ‘Recall’ vested with the...

  7. The review petition filed u/s 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish any mistake or...

  8. Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

  9. Frivolous review petition - Interest and cost to be recovered from the commissioner of customs in the review petition and all officers responsible.- HC

  10. Review petition - Validity of reopening of assessment - The High Court dismissed the review petitions seeking to challenge a common order dated 04.11.2022, which set...

  11. Denial of interest on the refund claim sanctioned to the appellant - it is seen that in ordinary course of refund arising out of finalization of provisional assessment...

  12. Reversal of CENVAT Credit on inputs contained in the waste pharmaceuticals destroyed are governed by the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with...

  13. Maintainability of Revision Petition before the High Court when the petitioner has alternate remedies as per the - an ex-parte decree was passed against the respondent -...

  14. REP licence was issued under old policy, import made under new revised policy - import to be governed by old policy - FTP

  15. Review petition - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Tribunal sustaining the levy without providing an opportunity of hearing - Review applicant had paid entire tax amount...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates