Supreme Court dismissed review petitions in Rainbow Papers case, holding that review isn’t a substitute for appeal and can’t re-agitate merits based on new rulings.
Review Not a Backdoor Appeal: Supreme Court in Rainbow Papers Case
The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions in the Rainbow Papers matter, reiterating that review under Article 137 of the Constitution is not a second appeal or rehearing on merits. The Court held that subsequent rulings by coordinate benches do not by themselves constitute a change in law warranting review.
Rejecting arguments that new judgments altered the legal landscape, the Court emphasized that review lies only for apparent error, not re-argument. It reaffirmed Union of India v. American Express, that a review cannot become a 'de facto appeal' in disguise, especially in tax cases like the erstwhile VAT regime.
Review jurisdiction is supervisory, corrective, and narrow—not corrective of preference.
Tax practitioners must caution clients that post-judgment review is a limited remedy. Strategic litigation should focus on appeals within time. Review petitions should demonstrate patent illegality, not mere divergence of view.
Citations
- Union of India v. American Express Banking Corp., (1994) 3 SCC 509
