Limited review jurisdiction and restaurant meal taxability both depend on narrow error correction and the facts of each transaction.

Review jurisdiction is confined to patent error, glaring omission, or error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be used to re-argue the merits or reopen finality merely because another view is possible. The court therefore treated the review petitions as not maintainable on merits. In sales tax matters involving restaurant meals, the earlier ruling was confined to its facts: where the dominant object is a sale of food, and services are only incidental, the transaction remains taxable. Taxability must be determined on the substance of each transaction and assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review petitions disclosed any ground warranting interference with the earlier judgment under the limited scope of review jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the earlier decision on the taxability of meals served in a restaurant was confined to its facts and did not lay down a universal rule for all restaurant transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the review petitions disclosed any ground warranting interference with the earlier judgment under the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

Analysis: Review is not a rehearing on merits and can be entertained only on substantial and compelling grounds, such as a glaring omission, patent mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record. The power under Article 137 of the Constitution of India is controlled by the applicable procedural rules governing review, and finality of judgment cannot be reopened merely because additional legal material is produced or because another view is possible. A review lies only when the original view is not a possible view on the record.

Conclusion: The review petitions did not disclose any ground for review and were not maintainable on the merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decision on the taxability of meals served in a restaurant was confined to its facts and did not lay down a universal rule for all restaurant transactions.

Analysis: The earlier decision rested on an undisputed factual foundation that the customer had no right to remove the unconsumed food and that the transaction was essentially a service for satisfying a human need, with additional amenities being part of the overall arrangement. On that basis, the judgment did not rule that every restaurant supply of food is outside sales tax. Where the dominant object of the transaction is a sale of food and services are merely incidental, the transaction remains exigible to sales tax. Taxability must therefore be determined by the facts of each assessment.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was confined to its facts and did not exclude sales tax where the transaction is in substance a sale of food.

Final Conclusion: The review jurisdiction was refused, and the earlier ruling was left undisturbed while clarifying that restaurant transactions must be tested on their own facts for sales tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Review under Article 137 is available only for patent error, glaring omission, or like grave mistake, and not for re-argument on merits; in sales tax matters, the character of a restaurant transaction depends on its substance and dominant object as established on the facts.

---