2003 (5) TMI 502 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Modification/clarification of the court's previous order.
2. Entitlement to full exemption from sales tax on raw materials.
3. Interpretation of the Industrial Policy and relevant statutory notifications.
4. Examination of inadvertent omission or typographical error in the judgment.
5. Maintainability of the modification petition under Section 152, C.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Modification/Clarification of the Court's Previous Order:
The petitioner sought modification/clarification of the order dated May 10, 2002, to include the words "and other cold rolled products" after "TMBP" in paragraph 13 of the judgment. The petitioner argued that the entire raw materials, i.e., HR coils, were used for manufacturing TMBP and other cold rolled products, and thus should be entitled to full exemption from sales tax.

2. Entitlement to Full Exemption from Sales Tax on Raw Materials:
The petitioner initially filed C.W.J.C. No. 2857 of 2000 (R) seeking quashing of orders that disallowed refund of sales tax for 1996-97 and allowed tax-free purchase of HR coils for 1997-98 on a proportional basis. The court directed the JCCT to consider the refund claim afresh, ensuring the sales tax paid on HR coils used for TMBP production was refunded if TISCO and SAIL had paid the tax to the state government.

3. Interpretation of the Industrial Policy and Relevant Statutory Notifications:
The court referenced clause (15.4) of S.O. No. 478 and clause (Ga) of S.O. No. 57, which provided for full exemption of sales tax on raw materials used for new products not previously produced by the unit. The petitioner argued that the exemption should apply to all cold rolled products manufactured using HR coils, not just TMBP.

4. Examination of Inadvertent Omission or Typographical Error in the Judgment:
The petitioner claimed that the omission of "other cold rolled products" after "TMBP" in the judgment was inadvertent and sought correction. The court examined the original writ petition and found no mention of a claim for exemption on HR coils used for other cold rolled products. The court held that the omission was not due to inadvertence or typographical error.

5. Maintainability of the Modification Petition under Section 152, C.P.C.:
The respondents argued that the modification petition was not maintainable as it sought to reopen the entire matter, which is not permissible under Section 152, C.P.C. The court agreed, stating that the judgment had reached finality and reopening the proceedings would lead to confusion and chaos. The court cited the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma, emphasizing that final proceedings cannot be reopened through a miscellaneous application.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the modification petition, stating that the judgment dated May 10, 2002, was clear and unambiguous in granting exemption only for HR coils used in the production of TMBP. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of inadvertent omission or typographical error and upheld the finality of the original judgment. The petition was dismissed without costs.