9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 and Appeal No. 166-169/ATVAT/2019. 2. It is pointed out that the appellant has filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.09.2022. The said order passed (vide Appeal No. 9/2021 and vide Appeal No. 10/2021) by this Court is set out below: "1. After some arguments, Mr Rajesh Mahna, who appears on behalf of the appellant, seeks leave to withdraw the above-captioned appeals, to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, to demonstrate that movement of goods did take place, pursuant to a contract, in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. Accordingly, the above-captioned appeals are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for, albeit as per law." 3. It is apparent from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as withdrawn the Special Leave to Appeal against the order dated 29-1-2000 of the High Court with permission to pursue his remedy by way of review instead and had not taken the liberty from this Court to challenge the order dated 29-1-2000 afresh by way of special leave in case he did not get relief in the review application, he is precluded from challenging the order dated 29-1-2000 of the High Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. 9. In Abhishek Malviya v. Welfare Commissioner and Anr. (supra), cited by the counsel for Respondent 8, the order dated 13-3-1997 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court sustaining the order of compensation passed by the Additional Welfare Commissioner was challenged before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Ors. (supra) cited by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 8, this Court has consistently held that an appeal by way of Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the order rejecting an application for review in view of the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. There is nothing in the decisions cited by the Appellant to show that this Court has taken a view different from the view taken in Abhishek Malviya v. Additional Welfare Commissioner and Anr. (supra) with regard to maintainability of an appeal by way of Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against an order of the High Court after an earlier Special Leave Petition against the same orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
