https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429110 Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another analogous sufficient reason. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to reargue matters already decided. In the GST context, the complaint of denial of hearing under the relevant appellate provisions had already been considered, and the record showed sufficient opportunity had been afforded. No patent or manifest error was demonstrated, so interference was unwarranted and the earlier order remained undisturbed. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Apr 2025 16:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429110 Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another analogous sufficient reason. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to reargue matters already decided. In the GST context, the complaint of denial of hearing under the relevant appellate provisions had already been considered, and the record showed sufficient opportunity had been afforded. No patent or manifest error was demonstrated, so interference was unwarranted and the earlier order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429110