TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sumanth For the Petitioners : Mr.P.V.Sudhakar, Mr.B.Raveendran, Mr.P.Rajkumar, Mr.R.Kumar, Mr.K.Thyagarajan, Mr.Sujit Ghosh for Mr.Adithya Reddy, Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, Mr.N.V.Balaji, Mr.K.Jeyachandran, Mr.T.Ramesh, Mr.G.K.Prem Kumar for Mr.Joseph Prabhakar, Mr.S.Rajasekar, Mr.N.Murali, Mr.K.Soundara Rajan, Mr.Jose Jacob, Mr.S.Muthuvenkatraman And Mr.R.Subramaniam For the Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazrudeen, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Venkateswaran, Special Government Pleader & Mr.C.Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader 2 For the Rev. Petition Nos. : 138 to 145 of 2022 : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Venkateswaran, Special Government Pleader & Mr.C.Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader For the Respondents : Mr.P.Rajkumar, Mr.N.Murali, Mr.T.Ramesh, Mr.P.Rajkumar, Ms.Radhika Chandrasekar, Mr.R.Senniappan, Mr.S.Rajesh, Mr.Sujit Ghosh for Mr.Adithya Reddy ORDER The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are dealers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) and seek the quashing of orders reversing the transitioning of tax deducted at source (TDS) under Section 140(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error'. 12. In Sow Chandra Kanta and Another v. Sheik Habib [1975 SCC (4) 457] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected a review petition on the ground that all the points that were argued in review had been urged even at the earlier stage when special leave was rejected, as a result, that the review proceeding virtually amounted to a rehearing. The following extract is relevant: 'Mr. Daphtary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were urged at the earlier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts to re-hearing. May be, we were not right in refusing special leave in the first round; but, once an order has been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is entertained only on a ground mentioned in XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.' 14. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others [Civil Appeal No.2284 of 1969 dated 25.01.1979] , the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in Civil Appeal No.2284 of 1969 dated 25.01.1979 has been referred to, and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following terms: 'But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when th....