TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to direct the Respondents to handover all the original documents to petitioner which have been seized by them and not relied on by Respondents while issuing Show Cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022, so that the petitioner is enabled in submitting his reply. It is further directed that upon receipt of original documents by Petitioner, the petitioner shall submit his reply within a period of 30 days and the Respondents shall adjudicate the case of the petitioner on its own merits after receipt of reply by affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to state that petitioner shall have the right to cross examine witnesses whose evidence has been relied upon in the show cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022 at appropriate stage in adjudication proceedings and the petitioner shall be at liberty to move appropriate application at appropriate stage for exercising the said right, in the course of being afforded personal hearing." 3. It is submitted on behalf of learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.1 in guise of final order dated 20.05.2024 passed in W.P. No. 12326/2024, is stalling the adjudication proceedings as he is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the Courts directive and provide the original documents. It is further submitted that the search and seizure conducted on 04.07.2020, and the subsequent Panchnama, did not comply with the mandatory guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC), in Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST. Additionally, it violated the instructions dated 23.12.2019 issued by CBIC, which stipulate that the Panchnama must include detailed particulars of the documents, goods, or items recovered and specify the Document Identification Number (DIN) on each document to verify their authenticity. The panchnama dated 04.07.2020 fails to include DIN number of Search Authorisation issued by a competent authority. It is strange to notice that the INS-02 annexed to the panchnama does not list the details of the files seized from the respondent in contravention to the guidelines of the CBIC that govern the department. The seized documents said to be scanned by the Respondents does not bear any signature or thumb impression of the representatives of the respondent. The counter signature on the panchnama and also on the documents seized from the premises of the respondent is necessary to prove the source....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period is about to expire on 06.02.2025. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority be permitted to continue adjudication. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words: "1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in 1964 SCR (5) 174, this Court opined: "11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error." 11. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Super....