Madras High Court
M/S K7 Computing Private Limited vs The Commissioner on 20 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.12.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Review Application No.205 of 2021
M/S K7 Computing Private Limited,
6th floor, Royal Techno Park,
No.144/7, Old Mahabalipuram Road,
Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041.
Rep., by its Managing Director
J.Kesavardhanan .. Review Petitioner
Vs
The Commissioner,
O/o the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,
Chennai South, 692, MHU Complex,
5th Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035. ..Respondent
Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule (1) read with
Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the judgment dated
05.08.2021 in W.A.No.1881 of 2021 passed by the Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Bench of this Court.
For Review Petitioner .. Mr.Arvind P. Datar,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.N.Viswanathan
ORDER
(Made by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
This is an application for review of the order of this Court
(Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam and Hon'ble
Mr.Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup) dated 05.08.2021
recorded on W.A. No.1881 of 2021.
2. Mr.Arvind P. Datar, learned senior advocate for
applicant / appellant / writ petitioner has submitted that the
binding precedent, including the law having force of Article 141
of the Constitution of India which was put to notice at the
relevant time was not considered and that error - which had
crept up in the order of learned single Judge (W.P.No.25923 of
2018 dated 29.10.2020) ought to have been corrected and not
doing so has resulted in palpable error of law which requires
correction in this review application. It is noted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
provision of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is also read before us. It is
noted that attention of this Court is invited to various decisions
of the Supreme Court of India and other High Courts to contend
that had correct law been followed, the result of the appeal
would have been different.
3. Having heard learned senior advocate for the applicant
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds
that the only point at issue before us in this application is,
whether it would be required / proper for us to review the order
passed by the Bench after hearing the parties. We note that,
while examining the sustainability of the order passed by
learned Single Judge recorded on W.P.No.25923 of 2018 dated
29.10.2020, the Division Bench while recording order dated
05.08.2021 was of the view that no interference was required
in the order of learned Single Judge. Learned senior advocate
for the applicant may be justified, standing at the place of the
applicant that the consideration of law as was cited, might have
led to different conclusion. That itself, according to us, is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ground to recall / review that order. This application therefore
need not be entertained.
4. Having held as above, we also note that, the order
sought to be reviewed was passed by the Division Bench of this
Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam and Hon'ble
Mr.Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup) and because of
reconstitution thereof, we would be little more slow in going
into that aspect on the ground of propriety.
5. For the above reasons, this Review Application is
dismissed.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
20.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/3
To
The Commissioner,
O/o the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,
Chennai South, 692, MHU Complex,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5th Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,
J.
mmi
Review Application No.205 of 2021
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
