Toshiba Technical Services ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12435 Guj

      C/SCA/8523/2021                        IA ORDER DATED: 25/08/2021




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1 of 2021
       In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8523 of 2021
                             With
     MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1 of 2021
       In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8524 of 2021
                             With
     MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1 of 2021
       In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8525 of 2021

=======================================

TOSHIBA TECHNICAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), AHMEDABAD ======================================= Appearance:

MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE for MR B S SOPARKAR for the PETITIONER(s) No. for the RESPONDENT(s) No. =======================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI and HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

Date : 25/08/2021

IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI)

1. The present applications have been filed seeking to review the common order dated 22.06.2021, passed in the Special Civil Application Nos. 8523 of 2021, 8524 of 2021 and 8525 of 2021.

2. It is sought to be submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. S. N. Soparkar for the applicant - petitioner that the Court has committed an error by observing that the petitioner had failed to make the payment of the amount determined by the authority under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the DTVSV Act, however, so

C/SCA/8523/2021 IA ORDER DATED: 25/08/2021

far as the Special Civil Application Nos. 8524 and 8525 of 2021 are concerned, the petitioner was not required to make any payment under section sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act.

3. In this regard, it may be noted that the Court, while disposing of all the three petitions by a common order dated 22.06.2021, had taken into consideration the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8523 of 2021 for the sake of convenience, in which, there was an order passed by the designated authority under section 5(1) of the said Act, requiring the petitioner to make payment of Rs.11,27,963/- on or before 30.04.2021 and Rs.12,40,759/- after 30.04.2021, which the petitioner had failed to make payment within the stipulated time.

4. It is true that, in the other two petitions, as per the certificate issued by the designated authority under section 5(1) of the said Act, the petitioner was not required to make any payment under said DTVSV Act, nonetheless, as observed in the order dated 22.06.2021, the petitioner had failed to comply with the other provisions contained in the said DTVSV Act in all the three petitions. Under the circumstances, there is no error apparent on the face of record which would require the review of the said order. At this juncture a beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 be made. It has been observed therein that -

"Under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident

C/SCA/8523/2021 IA ORDER DATED: 25/08/2021

and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."

5. In that view of the matter, all the three applications are dismissed.

[ Bela M. Trivedi, J. ]

[ A. C. Joshi, J. ] hiren