JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the review petitioner. 2. The review petitioner is the petitioner in W.P.No.20460 of 2021. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) No.II Division, Vijayawada revised the Order of Assessment dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer, imposing tax @14.5% on the goods in question. The Order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No.II Division, dated 27.01.2021, was challenged in W.P.No.20460 of 2021. The same was disposed of, vide Order dated 20.09.2021, declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground that there was statutory remedy of appeal and thus granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) with certain observations and directions. 3. The operative part of the judgment dated 20.09.2021 is as follows: “…9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and as the order is an appealable one, we are of the opinion that such issue may be agitated before the appellate authority in the first place. Accordingly, we give liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order before the appellate Tribunal within fortnight from date. In the event, the petitioner institutes such appeal upon making pre-deposit of 25% of the tax in dispute, there shall be suspension of realization of the remainder of the tax till the disposal of the appeal and consequently urgent notice shall also remained suspended. However, if the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction and does not file appeal after making pre-deposit within the time stipulated, the urgent notice shall stand revived and the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for realization of the disputed tax in question in accordance with law. 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the review petitioner was that the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had no power of revision under Section 32 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short ‘AP VAT Act’), in view of its proviso to pass the order in revision. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the review petitioner was that the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had no power of revision under Section 32 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short ‘AP VAT Act’), in view of its proviso to pass the order in revision. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad v. Indo National Limited, (2012) 12 SCC 778 in support of the contention that the revisional power cannot be invoked if similar question is pending or has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Appellate Tribunal. 5. Considering the said submission, as also the provision of Section 20 (2A) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short ‘APGST Act’), as also Section 32 (2) of the AP VAT Act, as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Coordinate Bench observed that in view of the difference between those two provisions, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited was not attracted. It was observed that there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction, as any issue or question as involved before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had not been decided by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the issue as involved before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal at Telangana State. In view thereof, his submission is that, the judgment under review deserves to be reviewed, as there is an apparent error on the face of the judgment. 7. We are not convinced with the aforesaid submission as the same does not make out a case of any apparent error of law or even of fact in the judgment under review for the reasons to follow shortly. 8. Section 32 (2) of AP VAT Act, the proviso, which reads as under; “Uses the expression, in respect of any issue or question, which was decided on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33”. 8. Section 32 (2) of AP VAT Act, the proviso, which reads as under; “Uses the expression, in respect of any issue or question, which was decided on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33”. “Section 32 (2): Powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in the case of orders passed or proceedings recorded by the authorities, officers or persons subordinate to them: Provided that the power under sub-sections (1) or (2) shall not be exercised by the authority specified therein in respect of any issue or question, which is the subject matter of an appeal before or which was decided on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33: Provided further that this restriction is not applicable in respect of other issues or questions, which are not the subject matter of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.” Section 32 (2) therefore refers to Section 33. 9. Section 33 (1) reads as under: “33 (1) Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal:- (1) any dealer objecting to an order passed or proceeding recorded:- (a) by any authority, on appeal under section 31; or (b) by the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under sections 21 or 32 or 38; or (c) By any authority following the ruling or order passed under section 67; may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within sixty days from the date of service of the order or proceeding on him.” 10. The ‘Appellate Tribunal has been defined under Section 2 (3) of AP VAT Act which reads as under: “(3) ‘Appellate Tribunal’ means the Appellate Tribunal appointed under Section 3;” 11. Section 3 of the AP VAT Act reads as under: “APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS 3. (1) The Government shall appoint an Appellate Tribunal consisting of a Chairman and two other members to exercise the functions conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by or under the Act. The Chairman shall be a judicial officer not below the rank of a District Judge Super Time Scale/District Judge Selection Grade (District Judge Grade-I) and of the other two members, one shall be an officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the other shall be an officer of the Indian Revenue Service not below the rank of an Additional Commissioner. (The words in the bracket are substituted by the Act No 34 of 2006 dated 19-09-2006 w.e.f 01- 04-2005) (2) Any vacancy in the membership of the Appellate Tribunal shall be filled up by the State Government. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Government may at any time, by order, constitute an additional Bench of the Tribunal, consisting of a Chairman who shall be a District Judge Super Time Scale/District Judge Selection Grade (District Judge Grade – I ) and two members of whom one shall be an Officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the other shall be an officer of the Indian Revenue Service not below the rank of an Additional Commissioner to function at such place and for such period as may be specified therein. (The words in the bracket are substituted by the Act No 34 of 2006 dated 19-09-2006 w.e.f 01-04-2005) (4) Where any orders passed by the Benches specified in sub-section (1) and (3) are in conflict with each other on same issue the senior Chairman of the two benches, on application or suo-moto shall constitute and preside over a full Bench of not less than five members in the manner specified in the regulations made under sub-section (5) and the decision of such bench shall be final. (5) The Appellate Tribunal shall, with the previous sanction of the Government make regulations consistent with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder, for regulating its procedure and the disposal of its business. Such regulations shall be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. (5) The Appellate Tribunal shall, with the previous sanction of the Government make regulations consistent with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder, for regulating its procedure and the disposal of its business. Such regulations shall be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. (6) (a) The functions of the Appellate Tribunal may be exercised,- (i) by a Bench consisting of all the members of the Appellate Tribunal; or (ii) by a Bench consisting of two members constituted by the Chairman; or (iii) by a Bench consisting of the Chairman and another member as constituted by the Chairman; or (iv) by a Bench consisting of the other two members in case the Chairman is absent or on leave or transfer or in case of the office of the Chairman is vacant otherwise; or (v) by a single member of the Appellate Tribunal constituted by the Chairman in cases where the turnover does not exceed rupees five lakhs: Explanation:- The single member referred to in item (v) above may be either the Chairman himself or any other member. (b) where an appeal or application is heard by all the three members of the Appellate Tribunal, and the members are divided in opinion, on any point or points such point or points shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority; (c) where an appeal or application is heard by a Bench consisting of two members whether it consists of the Chairman or not, and the members are divided in opinion, on any point or points, such point or points shall be referred to the Appellate Tribunal consisting of all the three members; (d) if any case which comes up before a single member (who is not the Chairman) or a Bench (of which the Chairman is not a member) involves a question of law, such single member or Bench may in his or its discretion, reserve such case for decision by a Bench of which the Chairman shall be a member. (Sub- section 6 is added by Act No 34 of 2006 dated 19-09-2006 w.e.f 01-04 2005) 12. It is not in dispute that the issue as before the Deputy Commissioner had not been decided by the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal. 13. (Sub- section 6 is added by Act No 34 of 2006 dated 19-09-2006 w.e.f 01-04 2005) 12. It is not in dispute that the issue as before the Deputy Commissioner had not been decided by the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal. 13. In our view, the provisions referred to above, refer to the question decided by the Appellate Tribunal, i.e., as constituted under Section 3 of the AP VAT Act, for the State of Andhra Pradesh. There was Appellate Tribunal of A.P. State, which has not decided any such issue. The proviso to Section 32 (2) was therefore not attracted. 14. The judgment under review also records as under in para-8: “……In the present case, nothing is placed on record to show that the VAT Tribunal in the State of Andhra Pradesh has taken a decision contrary to the show cause notice issued or finding recorded by the revisional authority. Thus, we do not find an inherent lack of jurisdiction in the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner to invoke suo moto powers of revision….” 15. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the Appellate Tribunal, State of Telangana has decided the same issue where also AP VAT Act applies. The copy of the Order of the Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal was filed along with the writ petition. So, in our view, on consideration of the material on record and finding that any order of the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal was not placed, the judgment was passed. Any copy of the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal on the issue has also not been placed before us. The review petitioner therefore based on the same Order of the Telangana VAT Appellate Tribunal, is trying to argue the matter afresh, which is not permissible in the review petition. It is settled in law that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16. In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362 on considering various pronouncements on the subject, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the gist on the scope of review, in paragraph-16 as under: “16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review” 17. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 after discussing various decisions on the scope of review jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the principles for exercise of the review jurisdiction, also laying down when the review would be maintainable and when not. Paragraph-20 of Kamlesh Verma (supra) is as under: “Summary of the principles 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112 ] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [ AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 ] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [ (2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 18. In view thereof, we do not find any apparent error in the Judgment under challenge in review petition. No case for review is made out. The Review Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.