M/S. Mahalaxmi Jewellers v. Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 68/2019 M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellers through its Proprietor Smt. SantoshSoni W/o Shri Rajendra Verma, aged 44 years, resident ofSunaron Ka Bas, Bhoron Ka Chowk, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-2, Jodhpur. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (3), Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat.For Respondent(s): Mr. Sunil Bhandari. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA 08/08/2019 Order Petitioner has preferred this review petition against orderdated 16[th] of May, 2019, passed in S.B. Civil Writ PetitionNo.6112/19. Essentially, in the review petition, petitioner-assesses hasdilated on the merits of the case questioning competence of theauthor of summons which were issued and impugned in the writpetition. In substance, the only ground urged in the reviewpetition is to reconsider the matter in the interest of justice. On behalf of department, reply to the review petition issubmitted raising certain preliminary objections aboutmaintainability of the review petition. As per respondent- department, in the guise of review petition, the whole endeavourof the petitioner is to raise new grounds which were not subjectmatter of the writ petition. It is also pleaded in the preliminaryobjections that there is no whisper in the review petition about anerror apparent on the face of record in the order under review.On merits also, the department has pleaded that the summonunder sub-section (1) of Section 131 of the Income-tax Act 1961was issued by authorized person and pursuant theretoproceedings are undertaken, and thereby no prejudice has beencaused to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thejudgment under review. The whole endeavor of the petitioner is to re-hear the matterdespite non-availability of any cogent ground for reviewing theorder. The review jurisdiction is not meant for re-hearing thematters and its invocation is desirable only when an aggrievedparty has made out a case of an error apparent on the face ofrecord in the judgment/order under review. This Court cannotdelve deep into the matter again on mere ipse dixit of thepetitioner just for fishing out some grounds to rehear the matter. Supreme Court, in case of Sow Chandra Kante and Ors.Vs. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674], while emphasizing on theground for review, has observed that in the guise of review re-hearing of the matter is not permissible. The Court held: “A review of a judgment is a serious step andreluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring Supreme Court, in case of Sow Chandra Kante and Ors.Vs. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674], while emphasizing on theground for review, has observed that in the guise of review re-hearing of the matter is not permissible. The Court held: “A review of a judgment is a serious step andreluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error hascrept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mererepetition, through different counsel, of old andover-ruled arguments, a second trip overineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes ofinconsequential import are obviously insufficient.The very strict need for compliance with thesefactors is the rationale behind the insistence ofcounsel's certificate which should not be a routineaffair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to thecourt which decided nor awareness of the preciouspublic time lost what with a huge back-log ofdockets waiting in the queue for disposal, forcounsel to issue easy certificates for entertainmentof review and fight over again the same battle whichhas been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar,we are sure, are jointly concerned in theconservation of judicial time for maximum use. Weregret to say that this case is typical of theunfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeatperformance with the review label as passport.Nothing which we did not hear then has been heardnow, except a couple of rulings on points earlier putforward. May be, as counsel now urges and thenpressed, our order refusing special leave wascapable of a different course. The present stage isnot a virgin ground but review of an earlier orderwhich has the normal feature of finality.” In Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. [(1999) 9 SCC 596], the Supreme Court, while examining scope of review,held: “30. The provision extracted above indicatethat the power of review available to the Tribunal isthe same as has been given to a court under Section114 read with Order XLVII CPC. The power is notabsolute and is hedged in by the restrictionsindicated in Order XLVII. The power can beexercised on the application of a person on thediscovery of new and important matter or evidencewhich, after the exercise of due diligence, was notwithin his knowledge or could not be produced byhim at the time when the order was made. Thepower can also be exercised on account of somemistake or error apparent on the face of the recordor for any other sufficient reason. A review cannotbe claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing orarguments or correction of an erroneous view takenearlier, that is to say, the power of review can beexercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stared in the face without anyelaborate arguments being needed for establishingit, it may be pointed out that the expression “anyother sufficient reason” used in Order XLVII Rule 1means a reason sufficiently analogous to thosespecified in the rule. 31. Any other attempt, except an attempt tocorrect an apparent error or an attempt not basedon any ground set out in Order XLVII, would amountto an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal underthe Act to review its judgment.” It is settled that as long as the point in issue has beendealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled tochallenge the order/judgment passed in the guise of possibilityof an alternative view. The court, in review jurisdictioninterferes only when a glaring omission, or patent mistake, orgrave error has crept in the order/judgment but in the instantcase I am unable to find any omission/mistake or error in theorder under review. In view of thereof, no case for review ismade out. Consequently, the review petition fails and same is rejected. (P.K. LOHRA),J