Review jurisdiction under CPC is narrow; a new challenge to Section 74 GST invocation could not be reopened.

The power of review under Section 114 and Order XLVII CPC is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record or other narrow grounds, and it cannot be used as a rehearing or to raise a contention that was available earlier but not taken. The challenge that Section 74 of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act could not be invoked without fraud or wilful intent was treated as a new plea unavailable in review. As the earlier judgment had already considered the composite scheme and turnover criteria, and the record showed no manifest error or patent mistake, no ground for review was made out and the penalty invocation could not be reopened.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and whether the challenge to invocation of Section 74 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be entertained in review.

Analysis: The power of review is confined to the narrow grounds recognised under Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A review is not a rehearing and cannot be used to correct an alleged erroneous decision on merits or to raise a plea that was available at the time of the writ proceedings but was not taken. The plea that Section 74 could not have been invoked in the absence of fraud or wilful intention was held to be a new contention, unavailable as a basis for review. The earlier judgment had already considered the challenge to the composite scheme and the turnover criteria, and the record did not disclose any manifest error, patent mistake, or other sufficient reason justifying interference.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the challenge to the penalty invocation could not be reopened in review.

---