Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS Civil Review application has been preferred by the original appellant of Tax Appeal No. 15 of 2010, whose tax appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29th June, 2012. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, hence, Tax Appeal No. 15 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner (original appellant) was dismissed.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that two points were raised in the Tax Appeal, firstly loan received by the Company from Hindu Undivided Family, but, as there was no evidence, this point was not accepted and secondly the sale of scrap of Export Oriented Unit and, therefore, exemption was sought for. This was also not given because the Export Oriented Unit has not received money in foreign currency or convertible exchange. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated, at length, by the Division Bench of this Court. Even otherwise also, this Civil Review application is not an appeal in disguise. No new argument is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant than what was argued in Tax Appeal No. 15 of 2010.
(3.) IT has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma, as reported in : (1979) 4 SCC 389, at paragraph 3 as under: "3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A -1 and A -3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948 -49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." (emphasis supplied);