Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 1215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. Kumar, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
L and T Komatsu Ltd., Bellary Road, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore Rep. by Its Manager Finance and Accounts, Mr. S. Prakash —Appellant
Vs.
The State of Karnataka Rep. by The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, Kalidasa Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore —Respondent
Review Petition No. 99 of 2011 in Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 42 of 2006
Decided on : 02-12-2011
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. T. Suryanarayana, M/s. King and Partridge, for the Appellant
Mr. Sharadamba, HCGP, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to recall an order and restore a review petition based on an error apparent on the face of the record.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Inter-state Sale - The court allowed the review petition, recalling the previous order and restoring the review petition to its original file.
Fact of the Case:
The review petition was filed seeking review of the order dated 24/12/2010 in STRP.No. 92/2006. The petitioner contended that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and that the case should be posted for a fresh hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and that the case should be recalled for a fresh hearing.
Issues: The issues involved the impression given to the parties regarding the disposal of the case on merits and the error apparent on the face of the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was an error apparent on the face of the record, which called for recalling of the order and a fresh hearing.
Final Decision: The review petition was allowed, and the order passed by the court on 24/12/2010 in STRP.42/2006 was recalled. The review petition was restored to its original file.
N. Kumar, J.—This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 24/12/2010 in STRP.No. 92/2006.
2. The review petition is dismissed holding that the transaction in question involves inter-state sale and therefore, no ground is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for review, the deponent has sworn to the fact that when the matter was heard on 23/4/2009, this Court observed that they are inclined to remand the matter but they made it clear that if for any reason they are not remanding the matter, they will post the matter again before the Court, so that it may be disposed of on merits. However, the Court has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on merits. In those circumstances, it was submitted that the impugned order requires to be recalled. It was also pointed out by relying on several judgments that admittedly, the consignee is situated within the State. After the assessee supplied his goods to the consignee, the consignee in turn has raised invoice and sent the goods outside the State. Therefore, it is contended that the contract between the consigner and the consignee did not occasion the movement of the goods outside the State. It is the contract between the purchaser and the consignee but there was no occasion for movement of the goods outside the State. Therefore, they say that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that an impression was given to the parties that in the event of the case to be disposed of on merits, the case be posted for hearing but it has not been done. Even otherwise, there appears to be an error apparent on the face of the record, which calls for recalling of the order and a fresh hearing.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following:
ORDER
The review petition is allowed. The order passed by this Court on 24/12/2010 in STRP.42/2006 is recalled. The review petition is restored to its original file.
Office is directed to list the STRP before the Bench according to roster.
