Arcaprava Banerjee vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri Arcaprava Banerjee, filed a review petition seeking to revisit a judgment previously passed by the High Court on December 2, 2025, in WPCT 158 of 2023. The petitioner contended that while the original writ petition had multiple grounds, only two were argued and decided. He sought to introduce additional grounds, including the inordinate delay in issuing a charge sheet and a direction from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which were not raised during the initial hearing. The revenue, represented by CGST & CX and DRI, opposed the review petition.
Held
The Court held that the necessary ingredients for exercising review jurisdiction were not available. It reasoned that an error in not arguing certain points does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, which is a prerequisite for review. The Court further observed that in litigation, petitioners often raise multiple grounds but choose to press only a few during the hearing. If the court were to entertain review petitions on the pretext that certain grounds were not argued but needed consideration, it would lead to unending litigation. The petitioner, therefore, failed to bring his case within the ambit of review jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court declined admission and dismissed the review petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a review petition to consider grounds not argued during the original writ petition hearing, particularly when the petitioner failed to press those grounds. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that although only two grounds were argued in the original writ petition, other grounds were present in the writ petition and the original application. He contended that these unargued grounds, specifically the delay in issuing the charge sheet and a direction from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, could and should be considered in the present review petition. Revenue's argument: The revenue opposed the prayer for review, arguing that the petitioner had not demonstrated the necessary ingredients for exercising review jurisdiction. They contended that if a petitioner chooses not to press certain grounds, the court is only obliged to deal with the points raised during the hearing, and entertaining review on unargued grounds would lead to endless litigation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
judgment.
The necessary ingredients for exercising review juri iction are not available. The said error of not arguing two points cannot fall within the ambit of error apparent on the face of the record.
Apart from this, the matter may be viewed from another angle. Ordinarily in every petition a litigant takes a number of grounds to assail an order or action. During the course of hearing, the petitioner chooses to press his petition on few grounds only. If he
3 does not press other grounds, the Court is obliged to deal with only points which are raised during the course of hearing. If review petition is entertained on the pretext that certain grounds were not argued, yet needs to be considered in review, the litigation will never come to an end. The petitioner miserably failed to bring his case within the ambit of review juri iction.
Hence, admission is declined and the review petition is dismissed. [SUJOY PAUL, CJ.] [PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.]
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.