Review jurisdiction cannot reopen concluded GST issues absent a manifest error apparent on the record.

Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another analogous sufficient reason. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to reargue matters already decided. In the GST context, the complaint of denial of hearing under the relevant appellate provisions had already been considered, and the record showed sufficient opportunity had been afforded. No patent or manifest error was demonstrated, so interference was unwarranted and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the earlier order, and whether the grievance regarding denial of hearing and the appellate authority's action under the goods and services tax law justified review.

Analysis: Review lies only on discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds. It is not an appeal in disguise, and a mere possible alternative view or repetition of earlier arguments does not justify reopening a concluded matter. On the facts, the grounds urged had already been considered, including the complaint regarding opportunity of hearing under Section 107(4) and Section 107(8) of the M.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the record showed that sufficient opportunity had been afforded. No patent or manifest error was shown.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order remained undisturbed, and the request for review failed within the narrow confines of review jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction can be exercised only for a manifest error apparent on the face of the record or analogous sufficient cause, and cannot be used to reargue matters already decided.

---