https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268070 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to a patent error, discovery of new matter, or other analogous sufficient reason, and cannot be used to re-open concluded findings or secure a rehearing on merits. The alleged inconsistency in the earlier judgment was not a self-evident error, because the court had already considered the record and held that the goods were supplied through the Himachal branch as intra-State sales and that the sprinkler/irrigation system was not an agricultural implement manually operated or animal driven. The review petition was therefore not maintainable, and the earlier findings on the transaction and denial of exemption remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:17:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268070 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to a patent error, discovery of new matter, or other analogous sufficient reason, and cannot be used to re-open concluded findings or secure a rehearing on merits. The alleged inconsistency in the earlier judgment was not a self-evident error, because the court had already considered the record and held that the goods were supplied through the Himachal branch as intra-State sales and that the sprinkler/irrigation system was not an agricultural implement manually operated or animal driven. The review petition was therefore not maintainable, and the earlier findings on the transaction and denial of exemption remained undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268070