2024 (11) TMI 514 - HC - GST

Seeking review of the Judgment and Order - interest for delayed filing of the returns - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT - Review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there an is error apparent on the face of the record. Review does not mean rehearing or appeal. There has to be finality to a litigation. This Court, based on the submissions, documents and evidences, has rendered the Judgment sought to be reviewed. Therefore, there are no error apparent on the face of the record which warrants this Court to reconsider this Judgment under review. There is no substance in this review petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 regarding exemption from payment of interest on delayed filing of returns and turnover tax for certain periods. Interpretation of Cabinet Note regarding reduction of turnover tax for Bar attached Hotels during Covid lockdown period.

Analysis:
The High Court considered a review petition seeking review of a Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023, which exempted FL3 licensees from paying interest for delayed filing of returns and turnover tax for specific periods during the Covid lockdown. The petitioner argued that the tax reduction from 10% to 5% was not limited to sales during the lockdown but extended to previous years as per a Cabinet decision. The petitioner contended that the exemption meant Bar attached Hotels could claim a refund of 5% tax but were still liable to pay interest on delayed turnover tax. The petitioner relied on Annexures (A) and (B) of the review petition, which contained the Cabinet Note and decision, to support their argument.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Cabinet decision specified that Bar attached Hotels and shops were required to pay 5% turnover tax, similar to retail outlets run by the Beverages Corporation, during the lockdown periods. The respondent highlighted that after the notification of the turnover tax rate, they had remitted the tax within the extended time for filing returns and payment. The Court thoroughly examined the arguments, documents, and submissions presented by both parties. The Court emphasized that review jurisdiction is limited to cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court reiterated that review is not a rehearing or appeal but aims to ensure finality in litigation.

Ultimately, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record that warranted reconsideration of the Judgment under review. The Court emphasized that it had considered all relevant documents and submissions before delivering the initial Judgment. As the documents presented during the review were not part of the original pleadings, the Court dismissed the review petition, stating that there was no substance in the arguments presented. The Court upheld the original Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 1639 of 2023 and related matters, concluding that the review petition lacked merit and was dismissed.