9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record as pointed out by the review petitioner to seek review of the judgment dated 26.2.2015. The order of the Supreme Court now relied upon by the review petitioner is dated 12.6.2013 and the judgment sought to be reviewed is dated 26.2.2015. Therefore, it cannot be pleaded that there is a new or important matter which was discovered for filing review petition and the same could not be produced by the petitioner even after exercising due diligence. The documents available with the review petitioner were not produced despite making a oral plea - Revision declined. - Review Application No. 42 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 7.00 lakhs. Thereafter, the petitioner once again preferred a petition before the Tribunal seeking modification of the order dated 22.9.2014. The Tribunal by considering the submissions made passed an order dated 24.11.2014 in Miscellaneous Order No.41997 of 2014. We have extracted the said order of the Tribunal in C.M.A.No.188 of 2015. For better clarity, we extract the same as such: 4. We find that the Tribunal at the time of hearing the stay petition, the applicant submitted that they availed the credit on the basis of original documents which were lost in floods. Prima facie, the Tribunal observed that there is no material placed that they have availed the credit on the basis of original documents. We find that the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial hardship as a cause to modify the order of pre-deposit. The order of the Tribunal seems to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the absence of any materials placed before this Court, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. In the above paragraph, this Court has clearly held that the assessee did not produce any document to support the plea of financial hardship or that the winding up proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court. Paragraph 11 makes it very clear that we do not find any reason to entertain the plea on a mere oral statement. 6. This Review Petition is now filed on the ground that subsequently some documents have been received and there is a prima facie cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded in paragraph 11 of the judgment passed in the appeal. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record as pointed out by the review petitioner to seek review of the judgment dated 26.2.2015. The order of the Supreme Court now relied upon by the review petitioner is dated 12.6.2013 and the judgment sought to be reviewed is dated 26.2.2015. Therefore, it cannot be pleaded that there is a new or important matter which was discovered for filing review petition and the same could not be produced by the petitioner even after exercising due diligence. The documents available with the review petitioner were not produced despite making a oral plea. Hence, no ground is made out to review the judgment dated 26.2.2015. 9. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
