Review jurisdiction under VAT law is limited to apparent errors; reargument without tribunal decision cannot sustain review.

Review is confined to correcting a self-evident error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to rehear or reargue the matter. In proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the proviso to Section 32(2) bars revision only where the relevant issue has been decided in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33. As no Appellate Tribunal order deciding the issue was shown, and reliance was placed instead on a Telangana Tribunal order, no permissible ground for review was disclosed and the review petition was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any apparent error or other ground warranting review of the earlier judgment on the revisional jurisdiction under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The review challenge turned on the proviso to Section 32(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which bars revision only in respect of an issue or question that is the subject matter of an appeal before, or has been decided on appeal by, the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33. The earlier judgment had found that no order of the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal deciding the relevant issue was shown, and that the petitioner was relying on a Telangana Tribunal order to reopen the matter. The settled principles governing review require an error that is self-evident and apparent on the face of the record; review cannot be used to rehear the case or to reargue matters already decided.

Conclusion: The petition did not disclose any apparent error or other permissible ground for review, and the review was not maintainable.

---