9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1285 - HC - GSTReview petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - mistake apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT - The petitioner has sought for review of the impugned order in this review petition mainly on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, but it is claimed by the review-petitioner that the issue involved is not covered by the judgment passed in M/S. LAXMI CONSTRUCTION VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, CT GST CIRCLE, BARBIL. 2024 (5) TMI 1214 - ORISSA HIGH COURT . It is hardly disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the impugned order was passed by this Court in presence of the present learned arguing counsels, but no objection was ever raised when such order was passed by this Court which is reflected in the rival submissions as recorded in the impugned order passed in the writ petition and, therefore, the impugned order, which was passed clearly demonstrates and reflects that the impugned order has been passed in their presence, but subsequently, the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking review of the impugned order on the ground that there is mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Since the order sought to be reviewed has been passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties without any objection and the order impugned in the writ petition being appealable one, this Court does not see any reason to hold that there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record so as to make the impugned order liable for review. Thus, no grounds for review of the impugned order having made out by the petitioner, the present Review Petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed - the review petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
Issues:
Review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, applicability of judgment in a previous case to the present case, amenability of the impugned order to review, grounds for review, appealability of the impugned order, new facts brought in the review petition, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Analysis: 1. The review petition was filed to challenge an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in a writ petition. The petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the State Tax Officer under the OGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the reasons for the impugned order were not legally sustainable. The Standing Counsel for the Revenue contended that the petitioner had bypassed the appellate forum and approached the High Court directly, which was not permissible. The Court found that the matter was covered by a previous judgment and disposed of the petition accordingly. 2. During the review petition hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that the issue in the present case was not covered by the previous judgment relied upon by the Court. The petitioner requested either a review or permission to approach the appellate forum without being influenced by the High Court's observations. The Standing Counsel opposed, stating that new facts were being introduced in the review petition without being part of the original writ petition. 3. The core issue was whether the impugned order was amenable to review. The Court outlined the grounds for a review petition under CPC, including the discovery of new evidence, mistake apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons. The petitioner mainly relied on a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record for seeking a review. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was passed in the presence of both counsels without objection, and being an appealable order, no error was apparent for review. 4. The Court dismissed the review petition, stating it lacked merit and did not establish grounds for review. The petitioner was allowed to approach the appellate forum, which was directed to consider the period of litigation before the High Court as a ground for relaxing the limitation period, if necessary. No costs were awarded in the case. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review petition as it did not find any error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review. The petitioner was given the option to pursue the matter in the appellate forum, with the Court directing the forum to consider the time spent in the High Court proceedings for limitation purposes.
|
