( 2026:JHHC:16533-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 53 of 2023 1. The Union of India, through the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, through its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, having its office at North Block, P.O. and P.S. North Block, New Delhi 110001. 2. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise-cum-Member of Designated Committee for SVLDRS, having its office at Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi. 3. Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Services Tax-cum-Member of Designated Committee for SVLDRS, having its office at Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi. 4. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Services Tax-cum- Member of Designated Committee for SVLDRS, having its office at Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi … … Petitioners Versus M/s Om Prakash Kashyap, a Proprietorship Firm, having its office at Dahugutu, P.O and P.S. Khunti, Pin 835210, through its Proprietor Om Prakash Kashyap, aged about 51 years, son of Late Kulwant Ram Gounjhu, resident of Dahugutu, P.O and P.S. Khunti, District Khunti, Pin 835210 …. …. Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------ For the Petitioners : Mr P.S.A. Pati, Advocate Mr Anurag Vijay, Jr. Standing Counsel For the Opp. Party : Mr Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate Ms Shruti Shekhar, Advocate Ms Nidhi Lall, Advocate ----- 07 /Dated: 09.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition seeks a review of the judgment and order dated 04.01.2023 allowing W.P.(T) No. 1436 of 2020 and directing the respondent (review petitioner herein) to extend the benefits of the Sabka Biswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [Scheme]. ( 2026:JHHC:16533-DB ) 2 3. Mr Pati, learned counsel for the review petitioners, stressed on clause- viii of Circular No. 1074/07/2019-CX dated 12th December, 2019 to contend that the finding of the Department-Appeal being time barred was incorrect and further even during the pendency of the process of review to decide whether the appeal should be instituted, the determination of tax due had to be categorised under the Litigation Category and not the Arrears Category. 4. Mr Pati also submitted that in this case, the period for filing appeal was not over when the respondent filed the declaration under the Scheme. This was an additional ground for categorising the tax dues under the Litigation Category rather than the Arrears Category. He submitted that the decision for which the review is now applied suffers from patent errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore ought to be reviewed. 5. Mr Gadodia submits that there is no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record. He submitted that clause-viii of the Circular dated 12th December 2019, refers to an appeal to be filed by the declarant and not by the Department. Further, he invites our attention to the averment in paragraph 11 of the review petition and submits that the Department cannot achieve indirectly what the circular binding upon the Department prevails directly. Accordingly, he submitted that the review petition ought to be dismissed. 6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 7. At the outset, we are satisfied that this review petition is nothing but an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. This is way beyond the scope of the review jurisdiction. ( 2026:JHHC:16533-DB ) 3 8. Secondly, in paragraph-11 of the review petition, the petitioners have pleaded as follows: - “11. That the petitioners state that due to the Hon'ble High Court passing the order dated 04.01.2023 allowing the Writ Petition No. 1436/2020 in favour of the writ petitioner, a proposal for filing appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 04.01.2023 was made vide office letter C.No. I(10)18/Legal/Ran(H)/OPK/2020 dated 27.01.2023, which was examined and the Board decided not to file SLP in the matter, purely on monetary grounds, keeping the question of law open in terms of section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further it has been stated that the subject impugned in order dated 04.01.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, is erroneous on the face of record, as the Hon'ble High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment, particularly in light of provisions of Finance Act 2019 and limitation for filing appeals, as declared by Hon'ble Apex Court.” 9. From the foregoing, the Department appears to be under the impression that, if it cannot file an appeal or an S.L.P. due to the monetary limits involved, it is entitled to maintain a review petition even though the parameters for its exercise may not exist. This impression may also not be proper. In any event, this averment shows that even the Department was quite conscious that, if indeed aggrieved by this Court’s order, its remedy would be to file a Special Leave Petition and not a review petition. 10. Thirdly, even on merits, we cannot agree that there is any error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment and order dated 04.01.2023. 11. On considering clause viii of the Circular dated 12th December 2019 and the definition of “amount in arrears” under Section 121 of the Scheme, we are prima facie satisfied that the reference to the appeal period being ( 2026:JHHC:16533-DB ) 4 over is in the context of the declarant filing an appeal and not the Department. Further, in this case, the Order-in-Original was made on 14.01.2020, and the declaration by the respondent herein was also filed on 14.01.2020. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that as of 14.01.2020, the process of review to decide whether an appeal should be preferred or not commenced. 12. The issue of appeal being time-barred cannot be said to be the basis of the judgment under review, even assuming that the observation in that regard may not be accurate. Excluding that observation would not make any difference to the outcome. Therefore, no review is warranted on that ground. 13. In any event, all these matters have been considered in some detail in the judgment and order dated 04.01.2023, and this is certainly not a case that calls for the exercise of our review jurisdiction, which, by its very nature, is limited. 14. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this review petition without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) June 09, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. Uploaded on 11.06.2026