TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay in preferring RVW 21 of 2025. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State/ review applicant submits that the judgment dated July 30, 2025 passed in MAT 104 of 2024 ought to be reviewed. 4. Learned senior counsel seeks to bring on record by way of supplementary affidavit certain minutes of meetings held by the GST Counci, which, it is contended, have a vital bearing on the matter. 5. However, we are unable to permit the review applicant to bring on record further materials which were not before us at the time when the judgment under review was passed. 6. More importantly, since, by way of the supplementary affidavit, merely minutes of the meetings of the GST Council are sought to be brought on record, which do not have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liance on a subsequent order dated August 4, 2025 passed in M.D. Securities Private Limited, where it was recorded that learned counsel for the respondent therein had submitted that an order had been passed rejecting the refund. 11. It is contended that the said rejection of refund was contrary to the proposition of M.D. Securities Private Limited relied on by this court, passed at an interlocutory stage of the matter, and, as such, was not binding in the true sense. 12. Learned senior counsel places reliance on Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited, reported at (2025) 4 SCC 509, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when a court disposes of a case without due regard to a provision of law or when it its atten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory provisions, the situation may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of record. 20. However, the said judgment does not lay down any absolute proposition that, as a standard rule in all cases, wherever all subsisting judgments on the topic or every provision of the statute is not considered, the court would reopen the entire gamut of arguments and enter into a re-examination of the law and facts of a case in the garb of a review, particularly when such provision was not argued at the original hearing. 21. Such a construction would be contrary to the well-settled line of judgments that in review, the court's jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, and grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indings arrived at at that stage may not be binding at the final stage of the self-same proceeding, if a proposition of law or ratio is laid down even in an interlocutory order, the same has binding effect as a precedent. 28. Thus, we cannot accept such argument. 29. Moreover, the subsequent order passed in M.D. Security (supra), a copy of which has been handed over to us, in the very second sentence records that it was passed in connection with an application seeking early hearing of the matter and merely recorded the submission of one of the counsel that an order had been passed rejecting the refund. 30. We do not find from the said order the ratio of such rejection order and/or the ultimate outcome thereafter. 31. Hence, in v....