Limited statutory review power: section 72 did not authorise the assessing authority to reopen its own assessment order.

Section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was construed as a limited provision restricting interference with an order for mere procedural defect or irregularity unless material hardship or failure of justice is shown. It was not treated as conferring power on the assessing authority to reopen, review, or set aside its own assessment order. Because the Act separately provided an appellate remedy under section 31(1) and a further appeal under section 33(1)(a), the assessee could not invoke section 72 before the same authority in the absence of express or implied review power. The writ challenge to the assessment order was therefore outside scope.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 empowers the assessing authority to review or set aside its own assessment order, and whether refusal to entertain an application under that provision was liable to be interfered with under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 72 was held to be only a restriction on the power to set aside an order for mere procedural defect or irregularity unless material hardship or failure of justice is shown. The provision was not construed as a source of power enabling the assessing authority to reopen or review its own assessment order. Since the Act provided a specific appellate remedy against an assessment order under section 31(1), with a further appeal under section 33(1)(a), the assessee could not invoke section 72 before the same assessing authority in the absence of any express or implied power of review. The challenge to the merits of the assessment order was therefore outside the scope of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The assessing authority was justified in refusing to entertain the application under section 72, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority cannot review its own order unless the power of review is expressly or by necessary implication conferred, and a provision limiting interference for procedural irregularity does not itself create such review jurisdiction.

---