9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate Mr. Kuntal Parikh for the applicant submitted that there are mistakes apparent on record in judgment and order dated 24.04.2024. It was submitted that reliance placed by this Court in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in (2018) 9 SCC 351 is not applicable in the facts of the case. 5. It was submitted that petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application challenging the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority for Advancing Ruling, Gujarat wherein it is held that Notified Area Authority, Vapi is neither a "local authority" nor a "Governmental authority" under the provisions of Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short "GST Act") and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to exemption allowed under Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28th June, 2017. It was submitted that in the judgment and order dated 24.04.2024 relying upon the decision in case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority(supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held that Notified Area Authority, Vapi is neither a local authority nor a Government authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allowed as prayed for. 8. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Raj Tanna for the respondent submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record so as to review or recall the order except mentioning of the decision in case of JSW Energy Ltd.(supra) which was cited by him but inadvertently stated to be cited by the petitioner. 9. It was submitted that so far as issue of applicability of Notification No. 12/2017 is concerned while applying the decision of Apex Court in case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority(supra) it is held to be squarely applicable by this court and therefore, there is no mistake apparent on record. 10. It was further submitted that serial no. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017 read with section 2 (69) of the GST Act does not refer to any other authority as rightly observed in para no. 36 of the judgment and order dated 24.04.2024. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is not true and correct. It was further submitted that reliance placed by the petitioner on clause(c) to section 2 (69) which defines "local authority" means a Municipal Committee, a Zilla Parishad, a District Board and any other authority legally entitled to or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reviewed. 16. It is a settled law with regard to the review of the Judgment. Review means reexamination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of the human fallibility as held by the Apex Court in case of S. Nagraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another reported in 1993 Suppl (4) Supreme Court Cases 595 as under: "19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its Order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithvi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai and others, AIR 1941 Federal Court 1, the Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. Apart from Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such Orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of court. The Court is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own Order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for sake of justice." 17. From the above observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the only power with the Court is to rectify the Judgment and Order and not review the same. In facts of the case, the so called mistakes pointed out by the applicant are not mistakes apparent on record so as to rectify the Judgment and Order. 18. A Judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on face of the record as the review jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction where error of law can be corrected. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the higher forum. Review therefore, is by no means an appeal in disguise as held by the Calcutta High Court in case of Joginder Pal Kapoor v/s. R L Plantation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould need no elaborate argument to point to the error and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about such error. In Thungabhadra's case cited supra, the Supreme Court had very specifically suggested as under "a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out." 19. The Apex Court in the following decisions has held that by invoking the provisions of section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Judgment cannot be reviewed except for errors apparent on record: 1) In case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and another v. Most. Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others reported in AIR 1954 SC 526, the Apex Court he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eviewing the Judgment in Sarla Mudgal 's case(1995 3 SCC 635). It is not the case of the petitioners that they have discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the court at the time of passing of the Judgment. All pleas raised before us were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after considering those pleas, passed the Judgment in Sarla Mudgal's case. We have also not found any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a review. Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties seeking review of the Judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the Judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the Judgment. The words "any-other sufficient reason appearing in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC" must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Board of Control for Cricket, India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 592, the Apex Court held as under: "89. Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the Order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit"." 21. In view of above settled legal position of law, when the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
