Allowed¶55

M/S. Finolex Cables Limited v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2026RP/595/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (DB) RP No.595/2025, Finolex Cables Ltd v State of Karnataka & Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance-23), Bagepalli check post; condonation of 268-day delay in review petition under S.114/Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; review of judgment dt. 24.02.2025 in STRP No.12/2022 (commercial tax revision petition); impugned order set aside, STRP restored to file, to be listed before roster Bench; notifications dated 19.01.2011 and 05.03.2014; Power Max v. State of Karnataka, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 460; notice served 26.07.2022 beyond prescribed period; endorsement dated 29.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 268 days condoned (I.A.No.1/2026 allowed); order dated 24.02.2025 in STRP No.12/2022 set aside; STRP No.12/2022 restored to the file; Registry directed to list STRP No.12/2022 before the Bench having roster. ¶55

M/S. Finolex Cables Limited Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 268 days in preferring the review petition against the judgment dated 24.02.2025 in STRP No.12/2022 should be condoned.

¶32

Court's answer

The delay of 268 days in preferring the review petition is condoned.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

I.A.No.1/2026 (application for condonation of delay) is allowed.

¶51

Key takeaways

The notice issued in the STRP on 22.03.2022 was served on 26.07.2022, beyond the prescribed period mentioned in the notice.ratio¶44
There is no material forthcoming to show that the pendency of the STRP was later communicated to the review petitioner.ratio¶44
The order dated 24.02.2025 passed in STRP No.12/2022 is set aside.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition (S.114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC) by M/s Finolex Cables Ltd seeking review of the High Court of Karnataka's judgment dated 24.02.2025 in STRP No.12/2022, whereby the respondents' revision petition had been allowed relying on notifications dated 19.01.2011 and 05.03.2014 and on Power Max v. State of Karnataka, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 460. The petitioner pleaded unawareness of the STRP proceedings: the notice issued on 22.03.2022 was served only on 26.07.2022, beyond the prescribed 10-day period; although the respondents sought time on 26.06.2023 to convey the pendency through the jurisdictional officer, no communication reached the petitioner, who learnt of the order only upon an endorsement dated 29.05.2025 and the Assessing Authority's intimation. Finding no material showing that the pendency was communicated, and noting that the petitioner disputes the notifications underlying the impugned order, the Division Bench (per Mohammad Nawaz J) deemed it appropriate to give the review petitioner an opportunity to contest the revision petition on merits: the 268-day delay was condoned, I.A.No.1/2026 was allowed, the order dated 24.02.2025 was set aside, STRP No.12/2022 was restored to the file, and the Registry was directed to list it before the Bench having roster.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:36763-DB RP No. 595 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010846062025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶9

AND

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO. 595 OF 2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LIMITED NO.104, FIRST FLOOR, RAHEJA CHAMBERS, NO.12, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MR. T.R. MOHAN.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SMT. VEENA J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE (PH))

¶15

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-1), BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶18

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (VIGILANCE-23) SALES TAX CHECK POST, BRCP (IN AND OUT),

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:36763-DB RP No. 595 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CNR: KAHC010846062025

¶23

N.H.07, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR-561 207.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA (PH)

¶26

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN STRP NO.12/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND DISMISS THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ and

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶32

Heard on I.A.No.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay

¶33

of 268 days in preferring the review petition. Perused the contents of the affidavit accompanying the application.

¶34

2. It is stated that the petitioner was unaware about the proceedings before this Court in STRP No.12/2022. The respondents had sought time before this Court, on 26.06.2023, to convey the pendency of the

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36763-DB RP No. 595 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CNR: KAHC010846062025

¶38

petition through the jurisdictional officer, but no such communication was received by the petitioner. Subsequently, upon receipt of the endorsement dated 29.05.2025 and the Assessing Authority intimating about the order dated 24.02.2025, petitioner came to know of passing of the order and immediately took steps to file the review petition. It is therefore, submitted that the delay is not intentional but for bonafide reasons. It is also submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits.

¶39

3. Learned AGA has opposed the application contending that this Court has issued notice to the respondent in STRP on 22.03.2022 and the notice was also served. However, there was no representation. Hence, this Court has passed the order on merits. He therefore, sought to reject the application seeking condonation of delay.

¶40

4. From the material on record, we have found that the notice was issued to the respondents by this

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36763-DB RP No. 595 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CNR: KAHC010846062025

¶44

Court, in SRTP, on 22.03.2022 for the appearance of the respondent within 10 days. As per the acknowledgment, notice was served on 26.07.2022, which is beyond the prescribed period mentioned in the notice. According to the petitioner on 26.06.2023, time was sought before this Court to convey the pendency of the STRP, through the jurisdictional officer, but no such communication was received. To show that the pendency of the STRP was later communicated to the review petitioner, there is no material forthcoming. The learned counsel for review petitioner submits that even the notice was not duly served upon the respondent in STRP.

¶45

5. Be that as it may, this Court in revision petition, relying on subsequent notifications dated 19.01.2011 followed by another notification dated 05.03.2014 and also relying on a decision of this Court in Power Max v. State of Karnataka, 2011 SCC online KAR 460 , has allowed the petition. The learned counsel for petitioner has disputed the notifications. In that view of the matter, we

¶46