2022 (4) TMI 1238 - HC - GST

Review of order - whether it would be required / proper to review the order passed by the Bench after hearing the parties? - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - HELD THAT - While examining the sustainability of the order passed by learned Single Judge in M/S. K7 COMPUTING PRIVATE LIMITED, VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI SOURTH 2020 (11) TMI 83 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the Division Bench while recording order was of the view that no interference was required in the order of learned Single Judge. Learned senior advocate for the applicant may be justified, standing at the place of the applicant that the consideration of law as was cited, might have led to different conclusion. That itself is no ground to recall / review that order. This application therefore need not be entertained. This Review Application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of a court order based on the consideration of binding precedent and legal errors.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an application for the review of a court order dated 05.08.2021, where the applicant argued that the order contained a palpable error of law that needed correction. The applicant's senior counsel contended that the correct law, including binding precedents, was not considered, leading to a different outcome if followed. The court noted the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The primary issue before the court was whether it was necessary to review the order based on the arguments presented. The Division Bench, in its original order, found no interference was required in the order of the learned Single Judge. Despite the applicant's argument that a different conclusion could have been reached if the correct law was applied, the court held that such grounds were insufficient for a review. Therefore, the court declined to entertain the review application.

The judgment also highlighted that the order under review was passed by a Division Bench, and due to the reconstitution of the bench, the court exercised caution in reviewing the propriety of the original order. Ultimately, based on the above reasons and analysis, the court dismissed the Review Application.