State Of Karnataka vs M/S Yeshwanth Laxman Sable
2022 Latest Caselaw 9599 Kant

                             1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                   R.P. NO.512 OF 2022
                             IN
              W.A. NO.2977 OF 2018(T-RES)


BETWEEN:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
   AND PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
   FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
   VIDHANA SOUDHA,
   BENGALURU - 560 009.

2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
   KARNATAKA, VANIYA THERIGE KARYALAYA,
   GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
   COMMERCIAL TAXES, LVO-500,
   HOSPET - 560 047.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
   OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,(AUDIT)
   2.1, DVO-2, VKT-2,
   BENGALURU - 560 047.

                                            ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.,)
                               2



AND:

M/S YESHWANTH LAXMAN SABLE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROP YESHWANTH LAXMAN SABLE,
S/O LAXMAN SABLE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O SABLE APARTMENT,
OLD MUMBAI PUNE HIGHWAY
SHANTHINAGAR, KHOPOLI
TALUK:KHALAPUR,
DISTRICT:RAIGAD - 410 204
                                             ... RESPONDENT

                            ---
      THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114
OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
24/09/2021 PASSED IN W.A.NO.2977/2018 AND REHEAR THE
MATTER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS R.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,              THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Mr.Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned Additional Government

Advocate for the petitioner submits that the decision in 'M/S

CIFTECH SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', W.P.No.51802/2014 has

been rendered by a learned Single Judge of this court,

whereas, the same has been referred to as a decision

rendered by a division bench of this court in the judgment

dated 24.09.2021 passed by this court. However, the

proposition of law remains the same that a vested right

cannot be taken away by retrospective operation of law.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

merit in the petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE SS