2022 (10) TMI 668 - HC - GST

Supreme Court Rejects Review Petition in SGST Case, Upholds Original Order Due to Lack of Substantive Legal Grounds

M/s SHRI SAI RUBBER WORKS Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

The SC reviewed a petition challenging the dismissal of a writ petition under the SGST Act. After analyzing legal precedents on review jurisdiction, the ... Review of the order of dismissing the writ petition - error apparent on the record or not - appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay without hearing on merits - Jurisdiction of Appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits - scope of review - Section 107(4) and 107(8) of M.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- When this Court already bestowed its consideration over the submissions raised by the review petitioner, then it appears that no fresh ground has been raised by the petitioner and all the grounds including the ground of opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 107(4) and 107(8) of the SGST Act already raised by the petitioner and from different e-mails and correspondence made between the appellate authority and petitioner whereby sufficient opportunity was given, it appears that there is no error apparent on record exists. The Apex Court in the case of THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS KAMAL SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER [2008 (6) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT] that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the appeal. It appears that no case for review is made out. After due consideration, no error apparent on the face of record found to exist. Petitioner has already advanced his arguments in previous proceedings at length. No case for interference is made out under the limited scope of review. Review petition dismissed. Issues:Review of order dismissing writ petition based on delay without opportunity of hearing and jurisdiction of appellate authority to decide on merits under SGST Act.Analysis:The review petition was filed seeking review of the order dismissing the writ petition due to delay without providing an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority did not have jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the appeal. Reference was made to Section 107(4) and 107(8) of the SGST Act to support this contention. The petitioner claimed that the court overlooked these aspects, leading to an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting the review petition.The principles governing review jurisdiction were discussed, citing the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, which outlined the circumstances under which a review is maintainable. These circumstances include the discovery of new evidence, mistake apparent on the record, or any other sufficient reason. The interpretation of 'any other sufficient reason' was clarified based on legal precedents. It was emphasized that a review is not an avenue to rehash old arguments or minor mistakes but is meant to rectify material errors leading to a miscarriage of justice.The court also referred to the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., highlighting that a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record should be prima facie visible and not require detailed examination. It was clarified that an erroneous legal view is not grounds for review, as a review is not equivalent to an appeal.Upon evaluating the grounds raised in the review petition, the court found that no fresh grounds were presented, and all issues, including the opportunity of hearing under the SGST Act, had already been addressed in previous correspondence between the parties. It was concluded that no error apparent on the record existed, and the petitioner had already extensively argued their case in previous proceedings, leaving no basis for interference under the limited scope of review.Ultimately, the court determined that the review petition lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.