2016 (11) TMI 1184 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Review of the order dated 29.04.2016 - petitioner has filed the petition seeking direction against the revisional authority to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 71(2) of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and rectify the revision order in terms of the petitioner s application - scope of review - Held that - the scope of review is very limited. Review is not as same as appeal. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, he has a remedy to challenge the same by way of SLP before the Hon ble Supreme Court. The scope of review comes from Section 114 and Order 47 Rule of the CPC - we do not find any merit in the review petition to allow - review petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review petition seeking review of the order dated 29.04.2016 on the ground of non-compliance with Section 71(2) of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a review petition challenging the dismissal of four writ petitions related to different parts of assessment. The delay of 116 days in filing the review petition was condoned. The petitioner argued that the revisional authority failed to comply with Section 71(2) of the Act, creating a right in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner sought direction for the revisional authority to decide on the application under Section 71. However, the Court concluded that the rectification application filed by the petitioner was akin to an appeal or revision, and rectification as claimed was not permissible under Section 71 of the Act.

The Court highlighted that the scope of review is limited compared to an appeal. Review is not equivalent to an appeal, and the grounds for review are circumscribed to specific situations such as mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. The judgment emphasized the distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record, stating that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

Citing relevant case laws, the Court reiterated that a review of judgment is a serious step and should only be entertained in cases of glaring omissions, patent mistakes, or grave errors. The judgment emphasized the need for strict compliance with the factors justifying a review, discouraging the repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes. The Court dismissed the review petition, finding no merit in allowing it based on the limited scope of review and the lack of substantial grounds for review.

In conclusion, the review petition seeking rectification under Section 71 of the Act was dismissed by the Court, emphasizing the restricted scope of review compared to an appeal and the necessity for substantial grounds to justify a review of judgment. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the specific criteria for review and discouraged repetitive arguments or minor issues from being the basis of a review petition.