M/S Jagadish Advertising vs. Designated Committee
Held
The Court held that the judgment dated April 9, 2021, passed in W.A. No. 570/2020 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, nor does it contain any misconception of law. Consequently, the Review Petition filed by M/s Jagadish Advertising was found to be without merit. The Court reasoned that for a review to be allowed, there must be a clear and obvious mistake in the record or a misinterpretation of the law. As no such grounds were established, the review petition was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the review petition.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jagadish Advertising, filed a Review Petition (R.P. No. 318 of 2021) before the Karnataka High Court. This petition sought to review an order dated April 9, 2021, passed by the same High Court in Writ Appeal No. 570 of 2020. The original writ appeal likely concerned a dispute related to GST, although the specific tax period, amount in dispute, and the authority that passed the initial order being challenged are not detailed in this judgment. The respondents are the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and the Union of India.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated April 9, 2021, passed by this Court in W.A. No. 570/2020 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record or any misconception of law, warranting a review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner, M/s Jagadish Advertising, argued that the previous order contained errors that justified a review. The respondents' contentions are not recorded in this judgment. The Court was asked to determine if the prior judgment was flawed to the extent that it should be revisited.
Sections Cited
Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY R.P. NO.318 OF 2021 IN W.A.No.570 OF 2020 (T-TAR) BETWEEN: M/S JAGADISH ADVERTISING JAGADISH MANSION, SANKEY ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560025 REPRESENTED BY MR. ASHWIN PADACHURI PARTNER AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O MR. JAGADISH PADACHURI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHURAMAN V, ADV.,) AND:
DESIGNATED COMMITTEE SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, NO.59, HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560032 (REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST BENGALURU NORTH COMMISSIONERATE).
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001. 2
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001. ... RESPONDENTS - - - THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL 2021 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WA 570/2020 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT MAY THINK FIT INCLUDING REFUND OF AMOUNTS PAID, IF
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.