M/S Shri Sai Rubber Works Thr. Its Proprietor Shashikant Vishwanath Bherde vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court dismissed the review petition, finding no error apparent on the face of the record. The Court referred to established principles of review jurisdiction, citing cases like Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others and State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. It held that a review is maintainable only for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or any other sufficient reason analogous to these. The Court noted that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to rehear concluded adjudications or correct erroneous views of law. The Court found that the petitioner had already advanced their arguments at length in the previous proceedings, and the grounds raised, including the opportunity of hearing under Section 107(4) and 107(8) of the SGST Act, had been considered. The Court also noted correspondence indicating that sufficient opportunity was given. Therefore, no case for interference under the limited scope of review was made out.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Sai Rubber Works, filed a review petition seeking to review an order dated October 20, 2021, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 13142/2021. The original writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner argued that their appeal before the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) was dismissed solely on the grounds of delay without providing an opportunity for a hearing. They contended that the Appellate Authority lacked the jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits and relied on Sections 107(4) and 107(8) of the M.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed the High Court committed an apparent error by not considering these aspects in its previous order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the writ petition without considering the petitioner's arguments regarding the Appellate Authority's lack of jurisdiction and the denial of an opportunity for hearing, as stipulated under Section 107(4) and 107(8) of the M.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: - The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without affording an opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to Sections 107(4) and 107(8) of the SGST Act. - The Appellate Authority did not have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. - The High Court's previous order dismissing the writ petition contained an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to consider these crucial aspects. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents supported the impugned order passed by the High Court and prayed for the dismissal of the review petition.