Review Petition Has A Limited Purpose And Cannot Be Allowed To Be 'An Appeal In Disguise': Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a Review Petition, affirming the principle that a review application cannot function as an "appeal in disguise." The court underscored that the power of review is exclusively applicable in cases where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record and not merely based on an erroneous decision.The above ruling came in a review petition filed against an order of the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, aggrieved by which the petitioner - the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax had approached the Apex Court through a Special Leave Petition which was disposed of.The petitioner argued that since the Supreme Court had granted permission to bring the matter before the current court, the review was permissible. The Petitioner asserted that this court possessed the authority to address the issue and rectify any errors.On the other hand, the respondent's counsel countered by pointing out the existence of a provision for appeal under Section 35G, which had been annulled by the National Tax Tribunal Act of 2005, a regulation predating 2003. Additionally, the counsel highlighted Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which stipulates that appeals can only be made to the Supreme Court, rendering a review ineligible. The counsel further argued against the applicability of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, especially when there's a specific provision in the Act for appealing to the Supreme Court.It was next submitted that even assuming that Order 47 Rule 1 is applicable, still the review is not maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face of the record for this Court to interfere. The counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court had not directed the Court to entertain the review but has permitted the petitioner herein to approach the Court by way of review and only if the review is maintainable, the Court can entertain and pass appropriate order.The bench, taking into account the submissions made by both parties, held, “In view of the submissions made by the parties, we are of the view that in the light of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act of 1944, the petitioner statutory right is only before the Supreme Court. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Order 47 Rule 1 is applicable, the review is not maintainable in the light of the judgment passed by this Court dated 15.03.2024 in Review Petition No. I of 2024.”The order rejecting the review petition referred to various judgements which laid down the law relating to the entertainment of review application which is extracted which are as follows: “(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opm10ns. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision I judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the review petition.Case Title: Commissioner of CGST vs. Manaksia LtdClick Here To Read Judgement

Review Petition Has A Limited Purpose And Cannot Be Allowed To Be 'An Appeal In Disguise': Meghalaya High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags