https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406072 Review jurisdiction remains narrow and cannot be used to reargue the merits or obtain a rehearing. In examining a challenge to an earlier denial of pensionary benefits, the Court considered the statutory framework under Section 10(1-B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, Rule 56(e) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, and the effect of the government order dated 5.5.2000. It found no error apparent on the face of the record, no new material, and no patent mistake in the earlier judgment. The cited authorities did not assist the applicant on the facts, so the review application was held not maintainable on merits. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Apr 2021 08:50:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406072 Review jurisdiction remains narrow and cannot be used to reargue the merits or obtain a rehearing. In examining a challenge to an earlier denial of pensionary benefits, the Court considered the statutory framework under Section 10(1-B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, Rule 56(e) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, and the effect of the government order dated 5.5.2000. It found no error apparent on the face of the record, no new material, and no patent mistake in the earlier judgment. The cited authorities did not assist the applicant on the facts, so the review application was held not maintainable on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406072