https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251200 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to a patent error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, or another legally sufficient reason of the same character. Reappreciating the same materials, narrowing the meaning of "not accounted for," and reopening a concluded finding on seizure under section 74 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 amounted to a fresh merits review rather than correction of an obvious error. The review was therefore not maintainable, the impugned review order could not stand, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251200 Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to a patent error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, or another legally sufficient reason of the same character. Reappreciating the same materials, narrowing the meaning of "not accounted for," and reopening a concluded finding on seizure under section 74 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 amounted to a fresh merits review rather than correction of an obvious error. The review was therefore not maintainable, the impugned review order could not stand, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251200