THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MICROLABS LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
RP/103/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01013453202009 December 2022Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the original order. Therefore, the court decided not to interfere with its previous judgment.

What were the facts?

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax filed a review petition seeking to recall an order passed by the High Court. The review petition was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

What were the issues?

Whether there are grounds for reviewing a previously passed High Court order due to an error apparent on the face of the record.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

RP No.103 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI REVIEW PETITION NO.103 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(1), 14/3 RASTROTHANA BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD OPP. RBI, BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV., FOR SRI. ARAVIND K V, ADV.,) AND: 1. M/S. MICROLABS LIMITED NO.27, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. DILIP SURANA AGED 43 YEARS S/O SRI. GHEWARCHAND SURANA. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

RP No.103 of 2022

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW/RECALL THE ORDER DATED 08/01/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITA NO.101/2010. TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 18.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.52798/2018.

2.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of which review is sought does not suffer from any infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court in exercise of review jurisdiction.

- 3 -

RP No.103 of 2022

Accordingly, the re-view petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →