https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757489 Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. A writ order passed in the presence of both sides, and based on the parties' agreement that the issue was covered by an earlier coordinate Bench decision, could not be reopened merely because the review applicant asserted that some factual contentions and authorities were not considered. No patent mistake or manifest error was shown. The disputed refund rejection was also treated as an appealable order, and the earlier order preserved the statutory appellate remedy with consequential reliefs. The review petition therefore failed and the earlier order remained undisturbed. en-us Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2025 23:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757489 Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. A writ order passed in the presence of both sides, and based on the parties' agreement that the issue was covered by an earlier coordinate Bench decision, could not be reopened merely because the review applicant asserted that some factual contentions and authorities were not considered. No patent mistake or manifest error was shown. The disputed refund rejection was also treated as an appealable order, and the earlier order preserved the statutory appellate remedy with consequential reliefs. The review petition therefore failed and the earlier order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757489