IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Review Petition No.301/2017 & Review Petition No.337/2017 & Review Petition Nos.338-347/2017 In Writ Petition Nos.16297 and 16589-599/2017 (T-RES) Between :
H. S. Vishwanath S/o. H. Srinivasa Murthy, Aged about 61 years, Residing at No.1,2,3 &4, Bagegowda Layout, Chennasandra, Subramanyapura Post, Behind B.M.T.C. Bus Depot, Bengaluru-560061, Proprietor of Vatsala constructions. …Petitioner (By Sri Kumar M. N., Advocate) And :
1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Karnataka, V.T.K. Building, Kalidasa Road, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-560009.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Karnataka, Audit-3.2, VAT Division-3, Room No.217, 2nd Floor, BMTC Building, Shantinagar, Bengaluru-560027. …Respondents These Review Petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to review the order dated 28.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.16297/2017 and Writ Petition Nos.16589-599/2017 T-RES) and etc.
These Review Petitions coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER The petitioner has filed these review petitions against the order dated 28.04.2017, whereby this Court had dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner.
2. Mr. Kumar M. N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, Mr. T. K. Vedamurthy, the learned Addl. Government Advocate, had pleaded before this Court that on 10.03.2014, the respondent No.2 had issued a notice under Section 39(1) r/w Section 72(2), 36 and 37 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, to the petitioner, and that the said notice was duly served. However, the said notice was not served upon the petitioner.
Secondly, the petitioner was never furnished with a copy of the intelligence report on which the re-assessment order dated 29.4.2014 was based upon. Therefore, a grave injustice is being caused to the petitioner. Hence the order dated 28.04.2017 should be reviewed by this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the order dated 28.04.2017.
4. It is, indeed, trite to state that the review jurisdiction is an extremely limited one. The said jurisdiction can be exercised provided, an evidence which was not available to the party even after exercise of due diligence has been brought on record, or if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
5. On 28.04.2017, during the course of the argument, the notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner was duly shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the fact that the said notice was duly received by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel cannot now raise the said issue that the notice was not delivered to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also did not raise any issue with regard to the non-supply of the intelligence report. The only contention, and the main contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that ample opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner by the respondent while passing the impugned re-assessment order. Since no contention was raised with regard to the non-supply of the intelligence report, the same cannot be raised by the petitioner in the review petition. Moreover, the intelligence report is not an document that could not have been made available to the petitioner, if the petitioner decided to exercise due diligence. If the petitioner wanted to raise any arguments on the basis of the intelligence report, it would have been readily available to him after exercising due diligence. The intelligence report could have been furnished before this Court, and could have been used as a basis to raise an argument. However, the petitioner failed to do so. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to raise the present argument.
7. Lastly, since the contention raised by the petitioner was with regard to the denial of ample opportunity to place his case before the respondent, this Court had elaborately dealt with the said contention. Thus, there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the Review Petitions. They are, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *bk/-