Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent error or new material; later grounds cannot reopen a refund direction.

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or a comparable sufficient reason. In a challenge concerning disbursement of refund under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, the Court found that the statutory conditions for withholding refund were not satisfied, and the later revisional position under section 75 could not be introduced in review because it was not on the original record. A review cannot be used to raise an afterthought, supplement the original order with fresh grounds, or reopen a matter merely because the order affects revenue. The application was rejected and the refund direction remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to recall or modify the order directing disbursement of refund under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: Review lies only where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence not available despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or some other sufficient reason of comparable gravity. The record showed that the challenge in the writ petition was to the withholding order under section 39 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the Court had found the statutory preconditions for withholding refund unsatisfied. The alleged revisional action under section 75 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was not brought on record when the writ petition was heard, and the review could not be used to introduce a later-developed position or to supplement the original order with fresh grounds. The mere fact that the order affected the revenue was not a ground for review, and the plea for relegation to the alternate statutory remedy under section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 had already been dealt with in the original judgment.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order directing refund remained undisturbed, and the attempt to reopen the matter in review failed for want of any reviewable error or newly discovered material.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to raise an afterthought or to introduce new grounds that were not part of the record when the original order was made, in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---