https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161987 A review under Order XLVII Rule 1(1) is maintainable where, on the date of filing, no appeal has been preferred; a later or failed attempt to seek special leave does not by itself bar review. The Supreme Court clarified that review is confined to patent error and cannot operate as an appeal in disguise, but an error is apparent where a court says no substantial question of law arises despite an identical legal controversy having already been treated as substantial. The earlier refusal of special leave did not amount to a decision on the merits of the review issue, so it could not justify rejection of the review petition. The High Court's refusal to entertain review was therefore erroneous. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2026 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161987 A review under Order XLVII Rule 1(1) is maintainable where, on the date of filing, no appeal has been preferred; a later or failed attempt to seek special leave does not by itself bar review. The Supreme Court clarified that review is confined to patent error and cannot operate as an appeal in disguise, but an error is apparent where a court says no substantial question of law arises despite an identical legal controversy having already been treated as substantial. The earlier refusal of special leave did not amount to a decision on the merits of the review issue, so it could not justify rejection of the review petition. The High Court's refusal to entertain review was therefore erroneous. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 22 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161987