THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHESLIND TEXTILES LTD

PDF · subscribers
RP/607/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01079632201108 June 2012Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,N.K.PATIL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petitioners' request to dismiss the review petition and the delay condonation application as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a rectification application for any typographical errors.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed a review petition seeking to review a previous judgment. The petitioners' counsel submitted that the review petition and an application for condoning delay be dismissed as not pressed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the review petition should be entertained. The petitioners themselves sought to withdraw the petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2012, PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA RP. No.607 OF 2011 BETWEEN : 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle-11(2), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. ...Petitioners (By Shri. K.V.Aravind, Advocate) AND : M/s. Cheslind Textiles Ltd., No.40, 100 Feet Road, IV Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. ...Respondent ****

2 This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the order dated 29/06/2010 passed in ITA.No.780/2006, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for Orders, this day, N.K.Patil J., made the following: O R D E R This Review Petition is filed for review of the judgment dated 29th June 2010, passed in I.T.A.No.780/2006, by this Court. 2. Shri.K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that I.A.I/2012 for condoning delay as also the review petition filed by the petitioners may be dismissed as not pressed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file necessary application for rectifying the typographical error that has crept in the judgment passed by this Court. 3. The submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners, as stated supra, is placed on record. I.A.I/2012 as well as the Review Petition filed by petitioners are dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file necessary application seeking

3 correction of the judgment, if they are so advised or need arise. Ordered accordingly. SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE BMV*

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →