https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751141 Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue a matter already decided or to obtain a second hearing on the same controversy. The Bombay HC held that the later-produced CERSAI registration documents did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record or justify reconsideration, because the earlier decision had independently turned on the effect of the existing revenue attachment and proclamation, and on the priority position where such lawful attachment preceded enforcement under Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDDB Act. No ground for review was made out, and the petition was not maintainable. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751141 Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue a matter already decided or to obtain a second hearing on the same controversy. The Bombay HC held that the later-produced CERSAI registration documents did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record or justify reconsideration, because the earlier decision had independently turned on the effect of the existing revenue attachment and proclamation, and on the priority position where such lawful attachment preceded enforcement under Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDDB Act. No ground for review was made out, and the petition was not maintainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751141