2013 (5) TMI 508 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the power of review conferred on the 4th respondent Tribunal under Section 60(7) of the KVAT Act takes in the power to review an interim order of the Tribunal, is the point for consideration.- held that - Since clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 60, obviously, is in respect of an order passed by the lower authority and not by the Tribunal, it is not an order which enables invocation of power to review under sub-section (7) of Section 60. Coming to the factual position available in the case in hand, the dispute is with regard to fixation of liability, the extent and sustainability of which are under challenge. It was after considering the appeal, that the Tribunal passed the interim order by way of Ext.P2 directing to satisfy a portion of the said liability, to the extent as specified therein, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. This is by virtue of the discretion exercised by the concerned authority with reference to the actual facts and figures and with proper application of mind. This does not constitute any error apparent on the face of the record or otherwise to have called for a review, invoking the power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 66 or under Section 60(7) of the KVAT Act. This Court finds that the challenge raised against Ext.P7 order passed by the Tribunal is devoid of any merit. None of the grounds raised in this writ petition does serve the purpose. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the power of review under Section 60(7) of the KVAT Act extends to interim orders of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an assessment for the year 2005-06, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal and a subsequent interim stay granted subject to certain conditions.

2. The petitioner filed a review application (Ext. P5) against the interim order, citing overlooked documents, but the Tribunal dismissed the review petition, stating that the power to review is only for cases under Section 60(4) dealing with final disposal of appeals.

3. The petitioner argued that the review was maintainable even for interim orders, citing clause (b) of Section 60(4), but the Court found this interpretation incorrect.

4. The Court highlighted that Section 60(7) allows review based on new and important facts for orders under Section 60(4) only, not for orders passed by the lower authority or interim orders.

5. The petitioner's reliance on Section 66 for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record was deemed irrelevant as the review application was under Section 60(7) and not Section 66.

6. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions must be strictly followed, and the power to review is limited to orders under Section 60(4) of the KVAT Act.

7. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Tribunal's power of review extends to interim orders based on precedents, emphasizing that the Tribunal's discretion in granting interim relief does not constitute an error justifying review.

8. The Court concluded that the challenge against the Tribunal's order lacked merit, and the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was given the option to request early hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal.