2026 (2) TMI 414 - HC - GST

Retrospective cancellation of registration challenged; review petition rejected for seeking re argument and no error found

Retrospective cancellation of registration was invalidated because the original show cause notice lacked reasons and the petitioner was not placed on ... Retrospective cancellation of registration - absence of reasons in the Show Cause Notice - failure to place party on prior notice - review petition - error apparent on the face of the record - review not maintainable as reopening overruled arguments - review jurisdiction is not an original hearing - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the Court while passing the order under review has specifically recorded a finding that the impugned order sans the reasons in the original Show Cause Notice in support of proposed retrospective cancellation as well as failure to place the petitioner on prior notice of such intent, has resulted in the order impugned being rendering invalid. The contention of the review applicant, in our opinion, amounts to the overruled arguments being sought to be reopened when there is already a concluded adjudication. In any case, the review jurisdiction cannot be equated with original hearing of the case. We see no material or manifest error on the face of record to infer that there is a miscarriage of justice to the review applicant. There is no scope for inference on the ground that an erroneous decision has been taken by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, having regard to the reasons recorded. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the review petition and the same stands rejected. Issues: Whether the review petition challenging the High Court's order dated 30 January 2025 (which modified retrospective GST cancellation to take effect from the date of the Show Cause Notice) is maintainable and whether there is any material or manifest error on the face of the record warranting review.Analysis: The Court applied the settled principles governing review jurisdiction (including grounds such as discovery of new evidence, mistake apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason) and the limits on review (that it is not an appeal in disguise, cannot reopen concluded adjudications, and requires a manifest error undermining the order). The Court examined the earlier finding that the original Show Cause Notice lacked reasons supporting retrospective cancellation and failed to place the petitioner on prior notice of such intent, which formed the basis for modifying the effective date of cancellation. The review applicant (revenue) advanced concerns about wider repercussions but did not demonstrate any new material or any error on the face of the record that would meet the strict review standards; nor did it show that the earlier order resulted in a miscarriage of justice or relied upon a patent factual or legal error requiring correction.Conclusion: The review petition is not maintainable and there is no material or manifest error on the face of the record; the review is rejected and the earlier order stands.