2021 (9) TMI 1240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Linhares, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Mihir Nanewadekar, Advocate with P. Karpe, Advocate for the Respondent.   P.C. 1. By this Review application, the department is before this Court seeking review of Judgment and order dated 9/7/2019 passed by this Court, only in so far as Writ Petition No.1104 of 2017 is concerned.   2. The ground for seeking review is that, according to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inhares, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant made submissions in terms of the statements made in the review application, seeking to draw the aforesaid distinction between Writ Petition No.1104 of 2017 and the other Writ petitions disposed of by the said Judgment and order. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mihir Nanewadekar, the learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant submit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the Shah Commission Report and the very basis of calculating the extent of under invoicing was based on the Shah Commission Report. On this basis it was submitted that by a conscious judicial order Writ Petition No.1104 of 2017 was clubbed with other similarly situated petitions. On this basis it was contented that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the Judgment and order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X