https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770779 Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to rehear issues already decided or to reargue the merits as an appeal in disguise. The review applications merely sought reconsideration of questions previously examined and rejected, and no manifest error in the earlier judgment was shown. The Madras HC therefore found no ground to entertain review and rejected the applications, leaving the prior judgment undisturbed. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 13:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770779 Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to rehear issues already decided or to reargue the merits as an appeal in disguise. The review applications merely sought reconsideration of questions previously examined and rejected, and no manifest error in the earlier judgment was shown. The Madras HC therefore found no ground to entertain review and rejected the applications, leaving the prior judgment undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770779