Section 48 revision does not lie against an order rejecting Section 47 rectification.

The petitioner’s appeal under Section 45(2) of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act, 2005, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 1 May 2024.

The petitioner challenged that order in Civil Revision No. 165 of 2024 under Section 48. On 24 March 2025, it withdrew the revision with liberty to file an appropriate application or review before the Tribunal; it did not seek or receive liberty to return to the High Court against the appellate order.

The petitioner then filed a rectification application under Section 47(1), which was rejected on 19 December 2025. It challenged that rejection in the present revision.

Whether a revision under Section 48 of the HP VAT Act is maintainable against an order rejecting an application for rectification under Section 47(1).

Whether the petitioner could renew its challenge to the appellate order after withdrawing its earlier revision with liberty only to seek an application or review before the Tribunal.

Section 48 of the HP VAT Act permits revision to the High Court against specified Tribunal orders—orders under Section 45(2) or Section 46(3)—where a question of law arises from an erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law.

Section 47(1) empowers the Tribunal, Commissioner, or authorised officer to rectify a mistake apparent from the record.

Under Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, AIR 1987 SC 88, a party that withdraws a proceeding cannot reapproach the court on the same issue unless liberty to do so was sought and granted.

The High Court held that the present revision challenged the Tribunal’s decision on a Section 47(1) rectification application, rather than an order of the kind specified in Section 48; accordingly, Section 48 did not provide a revision against that decision.

The Tribunal had found no mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification.

Further, the petitioner’s earlier revision had been withdrawn with liberty only to pursue an application or review before the Tribunal, not to return to the High Court to challenge the appellate order.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue any remedy available against the order under Section 47(1). Pending applications were also disposed of.