Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Vitobh S Shetty vs Revenue on 20 June, 2025
1 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.170/00015/2025
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00411/2024
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
1. Shri. VITOBH S SHETTY,
S/o SUBRAY,
Aged about 58 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone, R/o #707,
ARUSH ARYA APARTMENT,
DR. VISHNUVARDHAN ROAD,
CHANNASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560098.
2. Shri. B. G. NANDAKUMAR,
S/o B.C. GOVINDU,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone, R/o 29/30, 1st Cross,
Somanna Garden, Durgaparameshwari Layout,
Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru-560097.
3. Ms. V R Devikala,
D/o R V Rajagopalan,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
DGPM Hyderabad,
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
2 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
R/o No.1, 7th A Cross, Sir MV Nagar,
Kalkere Main Road, Ramamurthynagar,
Bangalore-560016.
4. Smt. Bharathi K,
D/o Late Shri KM Shama Bhat,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
DGPM, Hyderabad,
R/o #96, 3rd main, 5th cross, Akshayanagar West,
Begur post, Bengaluru 560068.
5. Smt. CV Savitha,
D/o K. S. Venkatdas,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Hyderabad Zone R/o No. 7, 2nd Main, RPC Layout,
Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560040.
6. Smt. Rakshanda Jamal Nawab,
D/o ARA NAWAB.,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone R/o No. 784,4th Block,
5th, Cross Koramangala, Bangalore 560034.
7. Shri. DHARMA VEERA P,
S/o PUTTASWAMY,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Lucknow Zone,
R/o No. 166, Shiva Krupa, 5th Cross,
10th Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
3 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. Shri. G. RAMA MOHAN NAIDU,
S/o G. CHINNA CHINNAPPA,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
DGPM, NEW DELHI R/o NO.4, 4TH CROSS,
CENTRAL REVENUE LAYOUT-2,
NEAR HEGDE NAGAR HANUMAN TAMPLE,
DR SHIVARAMKARANT NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560077.
9. Smt. G.ANITHA,
D/o GANESHA,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Vishakpatnam Zone,
R/o No.2598, 9th A Cross, 14th Main,
E Block, Sahakaranagar,
Bangalore-560092.
10.Shri. H.S.Govardhana Rao,
S/o H.N.Sudharshana Rao (late),
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Hyderabad Zone R/o 167, PRANAVAATMIKA,
8th Cross, 2nd Main, Goviunayakana Hally,
Kumaraswamy Layout 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560078.
11.Shri. JITENDRA.L,
S/o B.S. LAXMAIAH,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Vishakpatnam Zone R/o Flat-117,
Sycon Cressida Apts, Horamavu Main Road,
Kalyanagar P.O, Bangalore-43.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
4 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
12.Shri. K Anantha Murthy,
S/o Y Krishna Sharma,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone R/o No. 10, 11th Cross,
8th Main, Girinagar, Bengaluru-560085.
13.Shri. K. Muralidhara Acharya,
S/o K. Damodhara Acharya,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
DGPM, NEW DELHI R/o No.121,
Embassy Heritage, 8th Main Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560055.
14.Smt. K.R.Brunda,
D/o K.C.Ramaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone R/o Villa No.18 Jeevanadi Samskar,
Virupakshapura, Thindlu, Bangalore.
15.Shri. Krishna Ramachandra Bhat,
S/o Ramachandra Ganesh Bhat,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone R/o NO. 3, 7TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, KEB LAY OUT, RMV IIND STAGE,
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560094.
16.Shri. M Shankar Kumar,
S/o V Murugesan,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone, R/o 28, Sai Krupa, 2nd cross,
KSFC Layout, Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore 560084.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
5 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
17.Shri. Mahesh Kumar,
S/o K.M. Mahadevan,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone R/o No.41/1,
FIRST FLOOR, NEXT TO CHITRAKOOTA SCHOOL,
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU-560104.
18.Shri. Mohan T,
S/o Thimmaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Meerut zone,
R/o 3951, 17 D cross, 4 Main,
BSK 2 stage, Bangalore 560070.
19.Shri. N. P. Grampurohit,
S/o P. Grampurohit,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone,
R/o 40 Feet Road, 4th Main, Jayanagar East,
Near Telephone Exchange, Tumakuru.
20.Shri. Nanda Kumar,
S/o R.B.Upadhyaya,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone.
R/o #437/412, Hari Nivasa, 4th Cross,
Syndicate Bank Lay out, Herohalli, Bangalore.
21.Smt. R.Manjula,
D/o Late N.V. Ramaiah,
Aged about 56 years,
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
6 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone,
R/o MIG-25, H Block, 3rd Cross,
Ramakrishna Nagar,
Mysuru 570023.
22.Shri. RAM PRASAD,
S/o K.N.S. PRASAD,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Hyderabad Zone,
R/o A-901, Siroya Environ,
Unnathi Layout, R.T.Nagar Post,
BENGALURU - 560032.
23.Shri. Ravishankar Gaonkar,
S/o Govindray Gaonkar,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone,
R/o B 402. Princeville apartment,
Mylasandra, Mysore Road,
R V Niketan Post,
Bengaluru-560059.
24.Shri. S Natarajan,
S/o Late Shri A B Surulibommu,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Chennai Zone, R/o 11 Venkataswamappa Layout,
Near Nanjappa Circle,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
7 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
25.Shri. SHRISHAIL TORGAL,
S/o MALLIKARJUN TORGAL,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Pune Zone,
R/o H.NO. 367 BUDA SCHEME 51,
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI - 590009.
26. Shri. Srinivasa Gopal M,
S/o Shri MJR Mohan Rao,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone,
R/o FLAT No.CB0108, 1ST FLOOR,
B2 BLOCK, KSR CORDELIA, APARTMENTS,
RACHENAHALLI, DASARAHALLI ROAD,
HAF POST, BANGALORE 560024
27. Shri. V Lakshmi Narayana,
S/o Late V. Pullanna,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nagpur Zone,
R/o No.23, Jaynagar Colony, Ballari.
28,Shri. Vishwanatha Rao Chowhan,
S/o Ramanatha Rao,
Aged about 58 years,
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Lucknow Zone R/o No. 99, S.B.M. Colony,
4th Cross, Banashankari 1st Stage,
Bengaluru-560 050.
(By Advocate, Shri M.A Narayana )
Vs.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
8 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1. Union of India
represented by Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax,
Bengaluru Zone,
P.B.No.5400,
C. R. Building,
Queen's Road,
Bangalore-560 001. .....Respondents
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
9 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
(BY CIRCULATION) This Review Application is filed by the applicants in OA No.411/2024 seeking for review of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 21.04.2025 in OA No.411/2024.
2. Section 22(3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('Act' for short), provides for reviewing its decisions by the Tribunal. Sub-section- (3) of Section 22 makes it clear that the Tribunal while discharging its functions under this Act is vested with the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the matters enumerated in (a) to (i) therein.
3. 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, S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.07.01 SARALADEVI 17:47:12 +05'30' 10 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(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. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.07.01 SARALADEVI 17:47:12 +05'30' 11 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
4. Having regard to the aforesaid provision, it is consistently held by the judicial forums that the scope of review is limited. In the guise of exercising powers of review, this Tribunal cannot substitute the view taken earlier, unless an error is detected on the face of the record not by a process of reasoning after searching or on a roving inquiry.
5. It is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.07.01 SARALADEVI 17:47:12 +05'30' 12 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112) and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. ((2013) 8 SCC
337).
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original bearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness of results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out S SARALADEVI S CAT BANGALORE 2025.07.01 SARALADEVI 17:47:12 +05'30' 13 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
6. This view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhusudan Reddy vs. Narayana Reddy in Civil appeal No.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and in subsequent judgments.
7. In the light of the settled legal principles, we have carefully examined the review application. We have no hesitation to opine that the applicants are seeking for re-hearing of the matter in the guise of review to recall the order and to delete Paragraph-3 of the operative portion of the order which restricts the arrears of consequential benefits to only three years before the date of filing of the original application, which indeed is based on reasons assigned. Review is not an appeal in disguise. In our considered view, no error apparent on the face of the record is found calling for review of the order dated 21.04.2025 in OA No.411/2024 as sought for.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'
14 RA No.15/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8 In the result, the Review Application stands dismissed being devoid
of merit.
No order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-
(DR.SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT BANGALORE
2025.07.01
SARALADEVI 17:47:12
+05'30'