Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Central Tax vs Shri Rajiv Kumar Singh on 7 December, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, Sachin Shankar Magadum
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REVIEW PETITION NO.27/2021 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.19800/2019 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
ERSTWHILE COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE
BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RAJIV KUMAR SINGH
S/O SHRI ABHAY KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF
REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
BANASWADI HRBR LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 043
-2-
2. DEBASISH GHOSH
S/O SHRI DEBESH CHANDRA GHOSH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM - 590 001
3. ALOK SINGH
S/O SHRI ARJUN SINGH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM - 590 001
4. ALOK KUMAR SINGH
S/O SHRI UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM - 590 001
5. SUBODH CHAND
S/O SHRI MUNNI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM - 590 001
6. ASHOKNIK KUMAR
S/O SHRI MUNSHI LAL
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010
-3-
7. RAKESH KUMAR
S/O SHRI BISHAM PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010
8. UDIT BAGHEL
S/O SHRI AMIR CHAND BAGHEL
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010
9. HARPREET
S/O SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010
10. RAJU KUMAR MAHTO
S/O SHRI LAXMAN MAHTO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010
11. RANDHIR KUMAR MISHRA
S/O SHRI RAMA NARAYAN MISHRA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010
-4-
12. BIKRAM CHAKRABORTY
S/O SHRI BIMAL KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR, MANGALORE - 575 010
13. ASHOK KUMAR YADAV
S/O SHRI SUDARSHAN YADAV
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR
MANGALORE - 575 010
14. OM SHIV RAM
S/O SHRI BHANWAR LAL BAIRWA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE
PANAMBUR
MANGALORE - 575 010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH KUMAR B.S., ADVOCATE)
****
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF
CPC READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 18/10/2019 MADE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.19800/2019 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND KINDLY GRANT
RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19800/2019 BY
THE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
ORDER
This review petition is filed contending that the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has decided the lis by placing reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS vs. N.R.PARMAR AND OTHERS reported in
(2012) 13 SCC 340.
2. The basis to file this review petition is that the Apex Court
in the case of K.MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS vs.
NINGAM SIRO AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos.8833-8835 of 2019
dated 19.11.2019) has held that the ratio laid down in
N.R.Parmar's case is bad in law. Placing reliance on this
judgment, the review petitioners are before this Court seeking
review of the order.
3. On perusal of the grounds urged in the review petition, we
do not find any material indicating error apparent on the face. If
the petitioners are placing reliance on the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court which is subsequent to the order passed by this
Court, we are not inclined to entertain the review petition, since
subsequent events would not attract the ingredients enumerated
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of with liberty to
the petitioners to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum.
5. The pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
