TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition Dismissed: Court Upholds Interpretation of Section 128 in SVLDRS Scheme, Citing Apex Court Over Bombay HC Judgment</h1> <h3>Dinesh Kalway S/O Ratnakar Rao Kalway Versus Union Of India, Designated Committee, Commissioner GST And Central Excise Service Tax</h3> The HC dismissed the review petition challenging its interpretation of Section 128 of the SVLDRS Scheme. The petitioner contended that the HC ... Review of final order - correct interpretation of Section 128 of SVLDRS Scheme - HELD THAT:- After having gone through the order under review, it is obvious that this Court has considered the aspect in detail in para 5.1 and has taken a conscious decision against the petitioner which may be erroneous but cannot thus be termed as palpably erroneous. As regards non consideration of the Bombay High Court Judgment in case of A.C. Nielsen Research Services Private Limited vs. Union of India [2022 (11) TMI 1094 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is concerned, the same fades into insignificance due to the fact that in para 5.1. of the order under review reliance has been placed on Apex Court decision to take the view against petitioner. The remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere in case the petitioner feels that the order under review is erroneous. Accordingly, no case for review is made out - Review petition stands dismissed. Issues involved:The review petition seeks to challenge the final order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in a writ petition concerning the interpretation of Section 128 of the SVLDRS Scheme.Interpretation of Section 128 of SVLDRS Scheme:The review petitioner argued that the Court's view was erroneous as it did not consider a Bombay High Court judgment and incorrectly interpreted the 30-day period provided in Section 128 as extendable. The Court, however, stated that it had considered this aspect in detail and made a conscious decision against the petitioner, which, although possibly erroneous, was not palpably so. The Court emphasized that the reliance was placed on an Apex Court decision in reaching its conclusion, rendering the Bombay High Court judgment insignificant in this context.Dismissal of Review Petition:The Court concluded that since the petitioner believed the order under review to be erroneous, their remedy lay elsewhere. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for a review and dismissed the review petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
