9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 379 - HC - GSTSeeking review of final order - scope in a review petition - error apparent on the face of record or not - Order XLVII of the CPC - HELD THAT - A review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. In COL. AVTAR SINGH SEKHON VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1980 (7) TMI 269 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. Considering the facts of the present case and limited scope while entertaining Review, it is quite apparent that this court while allowing the Writ Petition of Respondent No. 1 has passed the order holding that the Respondent No. 1 herein is entitled to receive original non-relied document in view of Section 67(3) of CGST Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2017 - This court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order impugned so as to warrant interference and the directions which have been given in the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 are maintained for it being just and proper. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Review of the final order dated 20.05.2024. 2. Requirement to return original non-relied documents. 3. Admissibility and integrity of scanned documents. 4. Compliance with procedural guidelines during search and seizure. 5. Scope and grounds for review under Order XLVII of the CPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Review of the Final Order Dated 20.05.2024: The petitioner sought a review of the final order dated 20.05.2024, which had allowed the writ petition of Respondent No.1. The relief granted included the direction to hand over original documents seized but not relied upon in the show cause notices, enabling the petitioner to submit a reply. The petitioner argued that Respondent No.1 was stalling adjudication proceedings by insisting on original documents that were lost and for which FIR No.393/2022 had been filed. 2. Requirement to Return Original Non-Relied Documents: The court directed the respondents to return original non-relied documents to the petitioner, as mandated by Section 67(3) of the CGST Act. Respondent No.1 argued that original documents are crucial for a fair defense and procedural fairness, as they eliminate disputes over authenticity. The petitioner countered that scanned copies should suffice under Section 145 of the CGST Act, but the court maintained the necessity of original documents for integrity and fairness in the adjudication process. 3. Admissibility and Integrity of Scanned Documents: The petitioner claimed that the lost documents were statutory and that scanned copies had been provided, which should be admissible. However, Respondent No.1 highlighted inconsistencies in the scanning process, raising doubts about the credibility of the scanned documents. The court emphasized the importance of original documents to avoid potential disputes over authenticity and accuracy, rejecting the petitioner's argument. 4. Compliance with Procedural Guidelines During Search and Seizure: Respondent No.1 contended that the search and seizure conducted on 04.07.2020 did not comply with CBIC guidelines, as the panchnama lacked detailed particulars and Document Identification Numbers (DIN). The court noted these procedural lapses, which further justified the need for original documents to ensure a fair adjudication process. 5. Scope and Grounds for Review Under Order XLVII of the CPC: The court reiterated the limited scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which allows for review only on grounds of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons. The court cited precedents emphasizing that review is not a rehearing of the original matter but is confined to correcting manifest errors. The court found no such error in the original order and upheld the directions given, maintaining that the order was just and proper. Conclusion: The court dismissed the review petition, affirming that the original order dated 20.05.2024 was supported by legal provisions and binding judicial precedents. The directions to return original non-relied documents were upheld to ensure procedural fairness and integrity in the adjudication process. The court stressed that review is not an appellate procedure and must be confined to correcting manifest errors, which were not present in this case.
|
