Review Petition by Revenue dismissed against earlier Order Quashing GST Demand on Breach of Natural Justice

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax, Cooch Behar Charge and others Versus Suraj Mangar - 2026 (1) TMI 832 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that the Revenue’s review petition against the earlier judgment quashing the demand for violation of principles of natural justice was not maintainable, as no error apparent on the face of the record, no discovery of new evidence, and no other statutory ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were made out.

Facts:

The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax, Cooch Behar Charge & Ors. ('the Petitioner') filed a review application seeking recall of the earlier judgment in Suraj Mangar Versus The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax and Others. - 2025 (8) TMI 241 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTby which the demand and recovery were quashed and refund of pre-deposit was directed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Suraj Mangar ('the Respondent') is a registered dealer under the GST regime who had earlier challenged the assessment and demand orders before the High Court, alleging that the orders were passed ex-parte without granting effective opportunity of hearing and, on that basis, secured the writ relief of quashing and consequential refund of pre-deposit with interest.

The Petitioner contended in review that certain material facts regarding service of notices and opportunities allegedly granted to the Respondent had not been properly brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition and that there were errors apparent on the face of the record regarding the findings on natural justice and refund of pre-deposit.

The Respondent contended that the review application was an attempt to reargue the case and to sit in appeal over the earlier judgment, without pointing to any “error apparent on the face of the record” or discovery of “new and important matter or evidence” as required by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The Respondent further contended that all relevant facts had already been considered in the judgment dated July 30, 2025 and that the Court’s directions regarding quashing of the demand and refund of pre-deposit were based on clear findings of violation of natural justice.

The Petitioner’s grievance in review was that the earlier order caused prejudice to the Revenue by directing refund of pre-deposit and that the Court should revisit the findings on natural justice and the consequential relief, the review petition was filed invoking Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether the Revenue made out any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, such as error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter or evidence, so as to justify review of the Calcutta High Court’s earlier judgment in WPA No. 6207 of 2025 which quashed the GST demand and directed refund of pre-deposit for violation of principles of natural justice?

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax, Cooch Behar Charge and others Versus Suraj Mangar - 2026 (1) TMI 832 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held as under:

• Noted that, in the original order dated July 30, 2025 in WPA No. 6207 of 2025, the Court had examined the records and found that the Respondent had not been afforded sufficient and effective opportunity of hearing before passing the demand order, and on that basis, the Court quashed the order and consequential recovery, while permitting fresh proceedings after due compliance with natural justice and directing refund of pre-deposit with interest.
• Observed that, the Petitioner in review did not produce any new documents or materials that were not available at the time of original hearing, nor did the Petitioner demonstrate how the findings regarding lack of opportunity could be said to be vitiated by a patent error apparent on the face of the record.
• Noted that, the grounds urged in the review petition merely reiterated the arguments advanced in the writ proceeding and amounted to an attempt to re-open the merits of the case, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.
• Held that, there was no error apparent, no discovery of new and important matter, and no sufficient reason shown that could justify interference with the earlier judgment; consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
• Clarified that the dismissal of the review petition would not prevent the Revenue from proceeding afresh in accordance with law and in compliance with principles of natural justice, as already permitted in the original judgment, and that the directions regarding refund of pre-deposit with interest continued to operate.

Our Comments:

The High Court has strictly applied the classic limitations on review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used simply because a party is dissatisfied with the reasoning or conclusion of the earlier judgment.

The judgment is in line with settled Supreme Court law such as Kamlesh Verma Versus Mayawati & Ors. - 2013 (8) TMI 912 - Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court held that review can be entertained only on very narrow grounds, namely discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within knowledge despite due diligence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other analogous ground; mere repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes of inconsequential import is not a ground for review. The Calcutta High Court’s approach is consistent with this standard, as it treated the Revenue’s attempt as a re-argument on merits rather than pointing to a patent error or new evidence.

Relevant Provisions:

Rule 1 of Order XLVII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

“1. Application for review of judgment.—

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.

Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”

Section 54(7) of the CGST Act, 2017

54. Refund of tax.-

“(7) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (5) within sixty days from the date of receipt of application complete in all respects.”

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])