9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following order in the writ:- "This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Hazra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Bhadrak Circle, Balasore under Section 73 of the OGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142 (5) of the OGST Rules for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 vide Annexure-1. 4. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Hazra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons for passing the order impugned cannot be susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ignoring such fact, the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of W.P.(C) No.14181 of 2024 in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Ms. Laxmi Construction (supra). While praying to allow the Review Petition, Mr. Kar has made an alternative submission to grant liberty to the review petitioner to allow him to approach the Appellate forum by protecting the petitioner for the limitation, since the petitioner was prosecuting the litigation with due diligence before the High Court and in such event, necessary direction may kindly be passed to the concerned Appellate forum to pass order on merit in the appeal of the petitioner without being influenced by the observation made by this Court in the impugned order. 4. On the contrary, Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of power U/S. 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC provided the party applying for review of the order must satisfy the Court any of the three grounds, such as:- (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party applying for review or could not be produced by him at the time, when the decree was passed or order made, (ii) for some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, (iii) for any other sufficient reasons. 7. On a careful scrutiny of the averments taken in the review petition together with the rival submissions, it unambiguously discloses that the petitioner has sought for review of the impugned order in this review petition mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid backdrop of facts, 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. Consequently, 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. 8. Resultantly, the review petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, no order as to costs. 9. It is, however, open to the petitioner to approach the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
