https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752610 The AP HC dismissed a review petition challenging a judgment under Section 32(2) of the AP VAT Act, 2005. The court held that no apparent error existed on the face of the record, citing SC precedent in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer that errors requiring reasoning to detect cannot be considered apparent errors justifying review. The petitioner failed to establish grounds for review, resulting in dismissal of the petition. en-us Wed, 08 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2024 18:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752610 The AP HC dismissed a review petition challenging a judgment under Section 32(2) of the AP VAT Act, 2005. The court held that no apparent error existed on the face of the record, citing SC precedent in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer that errors requiring reasoning to detect cannot be considered apparent errors justifying review. The petitioner failed to establish grounds for review, resulting in dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 08 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752610