9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CPC. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. Considering the facts of the present case and limited scope while entertaining Review, it is quite apparent that this court while allowing the Writ Petition of Respondent No. 1 has passed the order holding that the Respondent No. 1 herein is entitled to receive original non-relied document in view of Section 67(3) of CGST Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2017 - This court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order impugned so as to warrant interference and the directions which have been given in the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 are maintained for it being just and proper. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari And Hon'ble Shri Justice Gajendra Singh For the Petitioner : Prasanna Prasad For the Respondent : Shri N.Venkatraman Senior Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department with the local police station. It is further submitted that the documents which have been lost are statutory documents, scanned copies of which have been supplied to the Respondent No.1 which are very well admissible in view of Section 145 of CGST Act but Respondent No. 1 is insisting upon the originals of the aforesaid documents in view of order passed by this court. Under the garb of the order dated 20.05.2024, Respondent is denying to accept the non-relied documents contending that he requires all the non-relied documents in original which cannot be done in view of the fact that File No. 11, 12 and 13 have been lost and thereby stalling the adjudication proceedings. 4. Per Contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that the scope in a review petition is very limited and no error apparent on the face of record exists so as to warrant review of order dated 20.05.2024 as according to Section 67(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, the responsibility to return the original non-RUD (non- Relied Upon Documents) lies with the petitioners. This section is part of Chapter XIV (SEARCH AND SEIZURE) of the CGST Act, which necessitates a stringent interpretation of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1. However, the certificates issued under Section 145 of the CGST Act, Section 36 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 65B of the Evidence Act are in the name of Ankul Baria, Senior Intelligence Officer. These certificates state that he personally scanned the documents using an HP scanner. This inconsistency regarding the scanning process raises doubts about the credibility and accuracy of the complaints. The Petitioners claim that the documents were lost from the office is dubious and unfounded. In their FIR dated 08.08.2022, the Petitioners did not specify the room number, almirah number, or rack number where the non-RUD documents were stored. This lack of detail in their police complaint suggests that the Petitioners intentionally provided vague information about the location of the files, potentially to mislead the investigation and to misplace the original documents, thereby hindering the respondent no. 1 s ability to access them for their defense. Hence, it is submitted that Non-Relied documents i.e. File No. 11, 12 and 13 have been manipulated to the prejudice of the Respondent No. 1 herein and now without supply of original non-relied documents and affording o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the review of such judgment.] 8. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. 9. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562 , the Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: 12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. (emphasis added) 12. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Apex Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. 13. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 , the Apex Court was examining an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by the respondents therein who took a ground that the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
