AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 19-3-2014 passed in Tax Case No. 6 of 2014 with a prayer to remit back the matter to the Tribunal to decide the case afresh after affording opportunity to put forth its case without being prejudiced by the earlier observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
On consideration of the grounds raised by the review petitioner, which are in the nature of taking liberty to re-argue the tax case, the same are unsustainable in the eyes of law.
There is no other ground pointed out by the review petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the review petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It appears that the review petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. In fact, the order dated 19-3-2014, which is sought to be reviewed herein, has been passed by this Court in Tax Case No. 6 of 2014 in presence of both the counsel.
It is also the well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. [See: Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, , Lily Thomas, Vs. Union of India and Others, , Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and Others, , The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and Others, , and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and Others - (2005) 6 SCC 651]. In view of foregoing, the review petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.