2024 (5) TMI 1328 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Scope of review jurisdiction - an error apparent on the face of the record - purchase price of purchase of plant and machinery, apparatus and equipment, to be included in the Fixed Capital Investment or not - the amount has been allowed as MODVAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - In its judgment in ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA VERSUS ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA 1979 (1) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Supreme Court propounded that review power and appellate power are inherently distinct. While the appellate power enables the courts to rectify all manners of errors in the judgment or order under challenge, review power does not - Recently, in ARUN DEV UPADHYAYA VERSUS INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. ANR. 2023 (7) TMI 1411 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Supreme Court reiterated that review power is to be exercised strictly within the confines of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908. Review jurisdiction is not a tool for the litigious or the disgruntled, it is a mechanism for safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process, for ensuring that justice remains blind to all but the merits of the case. Wielding the power of review jurisdiction carries a weighty burden one that demands unyielding diligence and meticulousness. Courts must resist the siren call of extraneous influences or the temptation to revisit contentious issues - the review jurisdiction is not a weapon to be wielded recklessly but a shield to safeguard the sanctity of the legal process. The review jurisdiction is a solemn duty bestowed upon the High Courts to rectify errors that may have crept into their judgments. It is not an avenue for re-argument or a platform for dissatisfied litigants to reiterate their grievances. Instead, it serves as a bulwark against miscarriage of justice, providing a mechanism for the correction of judicial fallibility. Judges, like all human beings, are liable to err. Thus, review jurisdiction stands as a sentinel against the tyranny of erroneous judgments, upholding the integrity of the judicial process. Coming to the merits of the instant review, the ground taken by the Respondent that important judgments of the Hon ble Supreme could not be submitted before this Court, does not merit the exercise of the power of review since the Respondent failed to establish that despite exercise of proper due diligence, the aforesaid judgments could not be brought to light. In any case, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dokka Samuel 1997 (3) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT , failure to produce a judgment would not tantamount to an error apparent on the face of the record. Mere failure to cite a judgment does not, in and of itself, render the original judgment flawed. Review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgment; rather it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgment does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question. This Court finds no merit in the instant review application preferred against the order - Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay Condonation Application
2. Review Application: Inclusion of MODVAT in Fixed Capital Investment
3. Contentions of the Respondent
4. Contentions of the Revisionist
5. Analysis and Conclusion

Summary:

1. Delay Condonation Application:
The court reviewed the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and found sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the review application. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the application was allowed.

2. Review Application:
The review application was filed by the Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow against an order dated February 15, 2010, in STRE No. 225 of 2002. The main issue raised was whether the amount paid for plant and machinery should be included in the 'Fixed Capital Investment' under Section 2(gg) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (UPTTA, 1948), despite being allowed as MODVAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA, 1944). The court had previously ruled in favor of the Revisionist, M/S Tata Steel Ltd.

3. Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent argued that relevant Supreme Court judgments were not cited during the original arguments. Specifically, they referenced the cases of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. and Commissioner of Trade Tax v. M/s Kajaria Cements Ltd., which they claimed should influence the exclusion of MODVAT from the value of capital goods. The Respondent sought a review on these grounds, asserting that the failure to present these judgments constituted a significant oversight.

4. Contentions of the Revisionist:
The Revisionist countered that the Respondent had already challenged the main judgment before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition as 'not pressed'. They argued that the review petition was not maintainable since it did not point out any 'main question of law' left unaddressed in the original judgment. They cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Dokka Samuel v. Dr. Jacob Lazarus Chelly, stating that failure to cite judgments is not a valid ground for review. They emphasized that the review petition was an appeal in disguise and should be dismissed with costs.

5. Analysis and Conclusion:
The court reiterated the principles governing review jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is not a tool for re-litigation but for correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the Respondent's failure to cite relevant judgments did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The court also noted the inconsistency in the Respondent's grounds for seeking review, which undermined their application. Citing various precedents, the court concluded that the review application lacked merit and dismissed it without costs.