Rubber Works vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
(Madhya Pradesh High Court, Madhya Pradesh)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Rubber Works
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh
Jul 15, 2022
Order No.
REVIEW PETITION No . 334 of 2022
TR Citation
2022 (7) TR 6454
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code


Present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 20-10-2021 passed in Writ Petition No.13142/2021 whereby the petition preferred by the review petitioner has been dismissed.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that without opportunity of hearing, appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2 -appellate authority on the ground of delay. Appellate authority was not having the jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Section 107(4) and 107(8) of M.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the SGST Act”) to buttress his submission. This Court did not consider all these aspects and committed error which is apparent on the face of record. Therefore, this review petition has been preferred.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the impugned order passed by this Court and prayed for dismissal of review petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended thereto.

5. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, principles relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down. The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:

When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”.

When the review will not be maintainable:

“(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

6. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the appeal.

7. When this Court already bestowed its consideration over the submissions raised by the review petitioner, then it appears that no fresh ground has been raised by the petitioner and all the grounds including the ground of opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 107(4) and 107(8) of the SGST Act already raised by the petitioner and from different e-mails and correspondence made between the appellate authority and petitioner whereby sufficient opportunity was given, it appears that there is no error apparent on record exists.

8. Testing the facts of the case on the touchstone of said legal position and when the factual contours are considered, then it appears that no case for review is made out. After due consideration, no error apparent on the face of record found to exist. Petitioner has already advanced his arguments in previous proceedings at length. No case for interference is made out under the limited scope of review.

9. Review petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • rubber works vs state of madhya pradesh and others madhya pradesh high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096