M/S. Dpj Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Private Limited vs. The Additional Director General

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. DPJ Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Private Limited and its Director, filed a review petition challenging an interim order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 742/2022. The Writ Appeal itself was filed against an order of a learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2022 in W.P.No.22250/2021. In the original writ petition, the learned Single Judge had quashed a Circular dated 17.06.2021 and all consequential actions. The interim order in the Writ Appeal had permitted the respondents to issue a show-cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act to save limitation, but restrained them from proceeding further with it during the pendency of the appeal. The review petitioners sought to have this interim order reviewed.

Held

The High Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review of the interim order dated 23.09.2025. The Court reasoned that no prejudice would be caused to the review petitioners by the interim order, which merely allowed the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act to save limitation, while simultaneously restraining further proceedings during the pendency of the writ appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is maintainable only for discovering an 'error apparent on the face of the record' and not for re-arguing a case or for raising new points. The Court rejected the review petition. All contentions of the parties were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the interim order dated 23.09.2025 passed in W.A.No.742/2022, warranting a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners sought a review of the interim order. While the judgment does not explicitly detail their arguments for review, it implies they believed there was a demonstrable error in the court's previous order. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence and others, were permitted to issue show-cause notices to save limitation. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue/state in response to the review petition, but their position was implicitly that the interim order was justified and no review was warranted.