2025 (2) TMI 206 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - requirement to fulfill pre-deposit conditions - whether the review petition filed by the Petitioner should be entertained specifically challenging the previous order that directed the Petitioner to avail an alternate remedy by fulfilling pre-deposit conditions? - HELD THAT - In this case the review is filed by the Advocate or through the Advocate. Therefore the certificate in the above-prescribed form had to accompany the review petition. It is evident that the certificate is not in terms of the certificate contemplated by Rule 23(iii) of Chapter IV of the Bombay High Court Rules. Such a certificate is required so that the Advocate who files the review petition must take responsibility for the grounds raised therein - Even if the above defect is ignored it is satisfied that no case is made out for the exercise of review jurisdiction. The Petitioner has instituted this review petition to once again argue the matter. In any event based upon the same no case is made out for the exercise of review jurisdiction. The contention that the Petitioner is a loss-making unit and therefore there ought to be no insistence for 10% pre-deposit is entirely misconceived. No case is made out for waiver even assuming such waiver was permissible. The extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked only to avoid pre-deposit requirements. All these contentions were duly considered. Conclusion - i) The extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked only to avoid pre-deposit requirements. ii) The contentions now sought to be advanced cannot be entertained in this review petition. Even considering such contentions no case is made out for the exercise of review jurisdiction. The review jurisdiction is minimal. This petition is dismissed with token costs of Rs.10, 000/-.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the review petition filed by the Petitioner should be entertained, specifically challenging the previous order that directed the Petitioner to avail an alternate remedy by fulfilling pre-deposit conditions. The core questions include:

Whether the review petition complies with the procedural requirements under the Bombay High Court Rules, particularly regarding the Advocate's Certificate.
Whether the grounds for review, including the applicability of certain legal precedents and CBIC Circulars, justify the waiver of the pre-deposit condition.
Whether there was any procedural unfairness in the hearing of the original petition.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Procedural Compliance with Advocate's Certificate

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Chapter IV Rule 23 of the Bombay High Court Rules mandates that a review petition filed by an Advocate must be accompanied by a certificate confirming that the grounds of review are valid.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the certificate provided did not comply with the prescribed format, as it did not specifically certify the grounds of review but rather addressed the jurisdictional aspect of the petition.
Key evidence and findings: The certificate on page 148 of the paper book did not meet the requirements of Rule 23(iii), which necessitates the Advocate's responsibility for the grounds raised.
Application of law to facts: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure the integrity of the review process.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the defect but proceeded to evaluate the substantive grounds of the review petition.
Conclusions: The procedural defect was noted but did not solely determine the outcome of the review petition.

Grounds for Review and Waiver of Pre-deposit

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Petitioner cited various precedents, including UCO Bank vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, to argue against the pre-deposit requirement based on CBIC Circulars.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the cited decisions were not applicable to the present case and did not support the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement.
Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the Petitioner's argument of being a loss-making unit did not justify the waiver of the pre-deposit condition.
Application of law to facts: The Court concluded that the extraordinary jurisdiction could not be invoked merely to circumvent pre-deposit requirements.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Court considered and dismissed the Petitioner's arguments as they had been previously addressed and found lacking in merit.
Conclusions: No new grounds were presented that would warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction.

Allegations of Procedural Unfairness

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded the Petitioner's complaint of not being elaborately heard but disagreed with the assertion, indicating that due process was followed.
Key evidence and findings: The Court documented the Petitioner's dissatisfaction but maintained that the hearing was conducted appropriately.
Application of law to facts: The Court's decision-making process was deemed fair and in accordance with procedural norms.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's concerns but found no merit in the claim of procedural unfairness.
Conclusions: The complaint of inadequate hearing did not affect the outcome of the review petition.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked only to avoid pre-deposit requirements."
Core principles established: The necessity of adhering to procedural rules, such as the Advocate's Certificate, and the limited scope of review jurisdiction were reinforced.
Final determinations on each issue: The review petition was dismissed, with the Court finding no valid grounds for review and emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and substantive merit in review applications.

The Court concluded by imposing token costs on the Petitioner, payable to a designated account, and required a compliance affidavit to be filed. The decision underscores the limited scope of review jurisdiction and the necessity of fulfilling procedural requirements and substantive grounds for a successful review petition.

← Previous