Review jurisdiction under Sabka Vishwas Scheme cannot reopen merits or correct non-decisive observations.

Review jurisdiction could not be used to reargue the merits of an earlier judgment granting benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Jharkhand HC interpreted Clause viii of Circular No. 1074/07/2019-CX and Section 121 of the Scheme to mean that the reference to expiry of the appeal period concerned an appeal by the declarant, not the Department. It also noted that the Order-in-Original and declaration were both dated 14.01.2020, so the Department's decision-making process on appeal had not commenced. Any observation on limitation was not the basis of the earlier decision and, even if inaccurate, did not justify review. The review petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment granting benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The challenge was found to be an attempt to reargue the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review. The Court considered the scope of Clause viii of Circular No. 1074/07/2019-CX dated 12th December, 2019 and Section 121 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and held that the reference to expiry of the appeal period was in the context of an appeal by the declarant, not the Department. The Court also noted that the Order-in-Original and the declaration were both dated 14.01.2020, so it could not be said that the Department's process of deciding whether to prefer an appeal had commenced by then. The observation on limitation for appeal was not treated as the basis of the earlier judgment and, even if assumed inaccurate, did not affect the result. The review jurisdiction, being limited, could not be invoked on these grounds.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was made out and the review petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment remained undisturbed and the request to reopen the matter was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be used to reargue the case on merits or to correct an observation that does not form the basis of the decision; only an error apparent on the face of the record can justify interference.

---