9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 763 - HC - Service TaxRejection of declaration for Tax Relief under the provisions of Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - mistake apparent on record or sufficient reasons for review - misconception of fact or not - Whether this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, must review the order on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner in not arguing the grounds (now urged) has made a mistake apparent on record in misconstruing the facts, or such circumstances would constitute sufficient reasons for review? HELD THAT - The provisions of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 2019 or Section 121(r) of the Scheme substantiate the petitioner s case that it s liability was quantified for the purposes of Tax Relief under Section 124(c) of the Scheme. Even otherwise, the learned counsel, again because of a misconception of fact, did not urge the petitioner s case that it would be entitled for Tax Relief under the arrears category as envisaged under Section 124 (1)(c) of the Scheme. If the material provisions of a statute are not drawn to the Court s attention, there would be sufficient reason for review as mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Further, while the grounds urged as sufficient reasons for review must be analogous to the grounds specifically mentioned therein, the Courts must examine whether the grounds urged could be called analogous in the facts and circumstances of the case bearing in mind the restrictions contemplated therein i.e., due diligence and reasons beyond control are established. As such, an applicant to succeed on the ground of sufficient reason must establish reasons analgous to a mistake or error apparent on the record as also due diligence and best efforts and satisfy other conditions required under order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. It is recognized that the difficulty is not in stating the proposition, but in applying the same. The material was available on record is not articulated as a ground for review even in the pleadings. It is argued that the learned counsel made a mistake in not putting out such ground for consideration, and because of such mistake the learned counsel also did not argue the significance of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2019 and Scheme on the question of quantification of the petitioner s liability upon filing of belated Form ST-3 Return for the purposes of the Scheme. It is undeniable that the attention of the Court is not drawn to material statutory provisions and the material circumstances. Thus, obvious sufficient reasons are established for review as envisaged under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC without calling for much probing. Therefore, this Court, answering the question for consideration in favour of the petitioner, opines that the order must be reviewed. Revision petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quantification of tax liability as of 30.06.2019 under the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. 2. Eligibility for tax relief under the "arrears" category of the Scheme. 3. Grounds for review of the court's previous order based on statutory provisions and sufficient reasons. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quantification of Tax Liability as of 30.06.2019: The petitioner argued that their tax liability was quantified before 30.06.2019 based on the Service Tax Returns filed in Form ST-3. The court initially dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the liability was quantified only in the show cause notice dated 09.12.2019, which was after the cut-off date of 30.06.2019 as required under Section 124(1)(d) of the Scheme. The petitioner contended that the term "quantification" should be interpreted in light of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 2019 and Section 121(r) of the Scheme, which would include the computation in the ST-3 returns filed before the cut-off date. 2. Eligibility for Tax Relief under the "Arrears" Category: The petitioner also claimed eligibility for tax relief under the "arrears" category as per Section 124(1)(c) of the Scheme. They argued that the Designated Committee should have considered their declaration in Form SVLDR-1 under the "arrears" category, especially in light of the Circular dated 12.12.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The petitioner had expressed their intention to waive the right to a personal hearing and requested adjudication on merits to file a declaration under the "arrears" category. 3. Grounds for Review of the Court's Previous Order: The petitioner sought a review of the court's order dated 14.12.2020, arguing that the relevant provisions of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 2019 and Section 121(r) of the Scheme were not presented to the court due to a misconception of facts by their counsel. They claimed that if these provisions were considered, the outcome of the writ petition would have been different. The petitioner relied on precedents where courts allowed reviews when statutory provisions were not considered, establishing a case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Court's Analysis and Decision: The court acknowledged that the petitioner’s counsel did not argue the grounds related to the quantification of liability and eligibility under the "arrears" category, which constituted a mistake apparent on the record. The court emphasized that if material statutory provisions were not brought to its attention, it could constitute sufficient reason for review. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Girdhari Lal Gupta v. DH Mehta and BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club, to support the proposition that a review is warranted when statutory provisions are overlooked. The court concluded that the failure to consider these provisions and the petitioner’s intention to claim relief under the "arrears" category, as evidenced by their communication with the adjudicating authority, justified a review. The court found sufficient reason for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC and decided to recall the previous order dated 14.12.2020, restoring the writ petition for reconsideration. Order: The review petition was allowed, and the order dated 14.12.2020 in WP No. 11190/2020 was recalled. The writ petition was restored on board for reconsideration and listed before the roster Bench on 01.10.2021.
|
