9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 - 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that challenging the adjudicating order the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, but the said order is appealable. As such, the petitioner has filed the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. It is further contended that since the order has been passed under Section 107 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 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. S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT GST submits before this Court that the petitioner has neither pleaded in W.P.(C) No. 14181 of 2024 about withdrawal of earlier writ in W.P.(C) No. 9376 of 2024 filed on same cause of action nor annexed the copy of such order and thereby, the petitioner is bringing new fact in the review petition without the same being averred in the writ petition. Further, Mr. Mishra points out that the impugned order in W.P.(C) No. 14181 of 2024 is an appealable ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons. 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 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 in W.P.(C) No. 14181 of 2024 is not covered by the judgment passed in Ms. Laxmi Construction (supra). 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 subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
