JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. 1. KANCHAN Oil Industries Ltd. (KOIL) is a company engaged in the business of, inter-alia, manufacture and sale of vanaspati. The original business of this company was manufacture and sale of solvent extracted vegetable oil. The company decided to expand its activities for manufacture of vanaspati in the year 1991. The Government of West Bengal has promulgated several incentive schemes to encourage setting up of new industries, and such schemes primarily envisage granting of sales tax concession to the entrepreneurs for setting up new manufacturing facilities. Some of these concessions have been extended to expanded portion of an existing unit. 2. IN the present case, dispute is over entitlement of KOIL get concession under the provisions of Section 41 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act 1994 and under the provisions of the West Bengal INdustrial Promotion (Assistance to INdustrial Unit) Scheme 1994. KOIL had applied on 23 June 1995 for registration of the expanded part of the industrial unit meant for manufacture of vanaspati. There is provision stipulated under the provisions of Section 41 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 for remission of sales tax. KOIL applied for and availed benefit under the 1994 Scheme, which provides for payment of ninety per cent of the amount of sales tax paid by a registered dealer similar to that of KOIL as industrial promotion assistance. This scheme came in force in 1 April 1994 and was to remain in force till 31 March 1999. As regards application of KOIL for remission of sales tax upon expansion of the existing industrial unit in terms of section 41 of the said Act, eligibility certificate was issued to KOIL on 9 April 1998. This eligibility certificate entitled KOIL to exemption of sales tax on purchase of raw materials for six years as also sales tax remission for sale of finished goods for six years subject to percentage ceiling of gross value of additional fixed capital asset of the project. 3. THE claim of KOIL for remission of sales tax under Section 41 of the 1994 Act was rejected. KOIL's application dated 12 November 1998 for certificate of eligibility in terms of Rules 146 and 147 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was granted on 30 November 1998. Such eligibility certificate appears to be a necessary condition for obtaining remission. KOIL's application dated 12 November 1998 for certificate of eligibility in terms of Rules 146 and 147 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was granted on 30 November 1998. Such eligibility certificate appears to be a necessary condition for obtaining remission. THE eligibility period was to take effect for six years, commencing from 30 July 1995. KOIL applied for renewal of eligibility certificates for three quarters on 8 December 1998. THEse applications were rejected on 8 March 1999 on the ground that KOIL's eligibility to pay tax had exceeded the prescribed limit of 75% of capital investment. KOIL challenged this order of rejection as well as the order passed on 30 November 1998 on the question of grant of retrospective effect to the eligibility certificate before the statutory fora, but was unsuccessful there. THEreafter they had approached the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal for quashing of the order passed on 30 November 1998 by which certificate was granted retrospectively and also the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on 15 October 2001 by which their application for renewal of the eligibility certificate was rejected. KOIL had wanted the certificate to be operative from the date of grant in the year 1998 and not with the retrospective effect from the year 1995. 4. CONSIDERING the provisions contained in the scheme and the Act, the Tribunal found the decision of the sales tax authorities to be valid and the petition of KOIL was dismissed. Against this judgment, KOIL approached this Court by filing a writ petition, W.P.T.T No. 246 of 2003. This writ petition was also in substance dismissed by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 21 March 2005. It is this judgment which is sought to be reviewed by KOIL as well as by the State. RVW NO. 1868 of 2005 is the application made by KOIL. This application has been filed mainly on the ground of non-consideration of explanation (c) to Section 40 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act 1994. It is this judgment which is sought to be reviewed by KOIL as well as by the State. RVW NO. 1868 of 2005 is the application made by KOIL. This application has been filed mainly on the ground of non-consideration of explanation (c) to Section 40 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act 1994. This explanation clarifies the meaning of the expression "expanded portion" in the following terms:- "[c] the expression "expanded portion", in relation to an existing industrial unit, shall mean the portion expanded with additional capacity on or after the appointed day with the approval of the State Government for the manufacture of goods in West Bengal, either in its existing location or in a different area;" We have considered the submissions made on behalf of KOIL. Though the aforesaid explanation was not specifically reverted to in the judgment under review, in our opinion there is no ex-facie error in the said judgment which would warrant exercise of our power of review. We do not think if the said provision was specifically referred to, that would have automatically lead to an inference that the eligibility certificate was to take effect from the date of grant, and not with retrospective effect. The Hon'ble Division Bench has considered in detail the statutory provisions in coming to the finding that eligibility certificate has to be retrospective. Ex-facie, we do not think reference to explanation [c] would have altered this finding. We do not find any other ground on the basis of which KOIL would be entitled to review the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench. 5. IN the petition filed by the State Government being RVW No. 2243 of 2007, the grievance is primarily based on the following observation made in the judgment under review:- " So far as the contention of the petitioners that enjoyment of benefits under the INcentive Scheme does not disentitle the petitioner no. 1 from the benefits under Section 41, appears to be acceptable as the language of Section 41 of the Act of 1994 does not in any way bar relief under the said Section in view of enjoyment of exemption under the INcentive Scheme. 1 from the benefits under Section 41, appears to be acceptable as the language of Section 41 of the Act of 1994 does not in any way bar relief under the said Section in view of enjoyment of exemption under the INcentive Scheme. We take particular note of the fact that sub section 4 of Section 41 provides for a specific bar for entitlement under the said Section 41 if the registered dealer opts for deferment of payment of tax under Section 40 does not mention anything which may indicate application of similar bar in case of a registered dealer who already enjoyed benefit under the INcentive Scheme. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is still entitled to benefit under Section 41 in spite of its enjoyment of benefit under the INcentive Scheme, is acceptable to us." 6. WE shall now address the issues raised in the review petition filed by the State Government of WEst Bengal. WE have indicated earlier the part of the judgment by which the State Government is aggrieved. The grounds on which they seek to sustain the review petition are that under the 1994 Scheme, industrial promotional assistance was only available where sales tax had already been paid and the registration certificate also stipulated that the company could avail of the facilities either under the finance department scheme of 90% of sales tax or the concessions under the Incentive Scheme 1993. KOIL could not avail benefits under both the schemes. It was argued by learned counsel appearing for the State Government that the power of review in Article 226 is not strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure but such power flows from inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested in it under the Constitution. Such jurisdiction, according to him confers the Writ Court with power wider than the power specified in Order 47 of the Code. In support of this argument, a decision of an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pintu Acharyya Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1997 (2) LJ 422 has been cited. This authority is on the jurisdiction of the Court to review its own decision on the ground of there being error apparent on the face of record. Reliance was also placed on the case of Mt. Jamna Kuer Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1997 (2) LJ 422 has been cited. This authority is on the jurisdiction of the Court to review its own decision on the ground of there being error apparent on the face of record. Reliance was also placed on the case of Mt. Jamna Kuer Vs. Lal Bahadur and Ors. reported in AIR 1950 FC 131. On the same point another authority, M. M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2000(1) SCC 666 was relied upon. The principles incorporated in these judgments are binding on us and we accept the basic plea of learned counsel that if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, then the High Court can review its own judgment. In fact learned counsel appearing for both the parties had stressed on this proposition of law to sustain their respective applications for review. 7. THE power to review a judgment, however, requires to be exercised with caution. In the present proceedings, review is prayed for on the ground of there being ex-facie error in the judgment. While exercising our jurisdiction to review, we cannot assume the role of an appellate court testing the legality of the judgment. This is not permissible in our precedent based judicial tradition. In the judgment under review, we find that the Hon'ble Division Bench had examined the provisions of the 1994 Act to come to a finding that KOIL would be entitled to benefit under Section 41 in spite of this enjoyment of benefit under the incentive scheme. In the judgment under review, the Hon'ble Division Bench on considering the provisions of the statute has come to a finding that the writ petitioners could be entitled to the benefits under Section 41 of the Act as also under the provisions of the Act. Now on the strength of a clause in the registration certificate, we do not think we can upset this finding in exercise of our review jurisdiction. That would call for a fresh exercise on construction of the statutory provisions, and in our opinion it would be for an appellate forum to undertake this exercise, if at all. We cannot enter into the question of legality of the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Division Bench to certain provisions of the statute. That would call for a fresh exercise on construction of the statutory provisions, and in our opinion it would be for an appellate forum to undertake this exercise, if at all. We cannot enter into the question of legality of the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Division Bench to certain provisions of the statute. Moreover, it is the admitted position in this case that the petitioners did not take advantage of double benefit. 8. UNDER these circumstances, both the petitions shall stand dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.