2021 (8) TMI 1137 - HC - GST

Review petition - Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit - compensation cess - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that there is no error of record as such, but the review petitioner is seeking review by placing certain so-called communication of resolution comment to the writ petitioner (annexure-2 to the review petitions) by stating that the same were not produced in the writ records due to inadvertence. This Court is of the considered view that bringing the so-called communication of resolution comment to the writ petitioner (annexure-2 to the review petitions) by filing the same in the review petition for the first time, cannot be a ground for review. It is not the case of the review petitioners that so-called communication proof, if any, was not within their knowledge at the time of filing of the counter affidavit in the writ petition. Failure to place so called communication of resolution comment in writ record due to inadvertence, cannot be a ground for review - this Court is of the considered view that no ground for review has been made out. These review petitions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Review of the order dated 4th January, 2021 passed in W.P(T) No. 4061 of 2019 regarding refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit pertaining to compensation cess.
2. Grounds for seeking review based on communication of resolution comment not brought on record during the writ proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment under review directed the respondents to enable the petitioner to file a refund application or manually accept the refund claim for unutilized Input Tax Credit related to compensation cess. The direction was based on the finding that the technical difficulty faced by the petitioner was communicated for the first time through a counter affidavit. The review petitions sought to review this order, claiming identical points in both cases.

2. The review petitioner's counsel failed to point out any error in the writ court's judgment. The argument for review was centered on the communication of resolution comments not being mentioned in the counter affidavits during the writ proceedings. The review petitioner contended that the resolution comment was communicated for the first time through annexure-2 of the review petitions.

3. The court noted that the communication of resolution comments, as presented in annexure-2 of the review petitions, was not part of the writ records or counter affidavits. The review petitioner's claim of inadvertence for not including this communication earlier was refuted. The court emphasized that the failure to include the communication in the writ record due to inadvertence was not a valid ground for review.

4. It was acknowledged that there was no error of record, and the review petitioner's attempt to introduce the communication of resolution comments belatedly was not considered a valid basis for review. The court highlighted that the decision on the refund application was left to the authority, and no specific refund direction was issued in the original judgment.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the review petitions, concluding that no grounds for review were established. The judgment clarified that the decision on the refund application remained with the concerned respondent to be processed in accordance with the law. The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial grounds for review and the absence of any refund directive in the original judgment.