9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l position available in the case in hand, the dispute is with regard to fixation of liability, the extent and sustainability of which are under challenge. It was after considering the appeal, that the Tribunal passed the interim order by way of Ext.P2 directing to satisfy a portion of the said liability, to the extent as specified therein, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. This is by virtue of the discretion exercised by the concerned authority with reference to the actual facts and figures and with proper application of mind. This does not constitute any 'error apparent on the face of the record' or otherwise to have called for a review, invoking the power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments had not been looked into, thus seeking to call for immediate interference. The said application was opposed from the part of the respondents, particularly on the question of maintainability. The issue was considered by the Tribunal with reference to the specific case projected by the petitioner, also in the light of the argument notes explaining the scope of review and with reference to the relevant provisions of law. 5. After considering the matter and the scope of review under Section 60(7) of the VAT Act, 2003, the Tribunal observed that the power vested upon the Tribunal to have any order reviewed is only in respect of a case covered by Section 60(4) dealing with final disposal of the appeal and as such, the Review Petition p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the High Court thereon is pending, the Appellate Tribunal may defer the hearing of the appeal before it, till such revision petition to the High Court or the appeal to the Supreme Court is disposed of. " Section 60(7): "(7) The Appellate Tribunal may, on the application of the appellant or the respondent review any order passed by it under sub-section (4) on the basis of the discovery of new and important facts which after the exercise of due diligence were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the order was made; Provided that no such application shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order." Sub section(7) of Section 60 clearly says that the power to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer authority, which is under challenge in the appeal and it is in respect of such appeal, when to be disposed of, as observed in sub-section (4), that the course open to the Tribunal is provided as stipulated in the clause mentioned therein. Since clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 60, obviously, is in respect of an order passed by the lower authority and not by the Tribunal, it is not an order which enables invocation of power to review under sub-section (7) of Section 60. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then refers to the course and power as stipulated under section 66, which reads as follows: Section 66: "66. Power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record.- (1) Any authority includin Appellate Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an error which is discernible from the records available so as to constitute an error apparent on the face of the records and not in respect of any error which could be agitated or established by an exploratory analysis/exercise. The scope of interference and jurisdiction of the Courts in this regard has been crystallised as mentioned above; more so in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhuri [AIR 1995 SC 455 ]. 11. Admittedly, the power sought to be invoked by filing the application for review is with reference to the specific power under Section 60(7) of the KVAT Act, as dealt with by the Tribunal in Ext. P7. The pleadings and grounds raised in the writ petition have been set forth with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner will definitely fall in line with clause (b) of Section 60(4) stands already answered against the petitioner, as the 'order' contemplated under clause (b) is an 'order' passed by the lower authority and not by the Tribunal. This being the position, this Court finds that the decisions cited across the Bar do not support the case of the petitioner in any manner. 14. Coming to the factual position available in the case in hand, the dispute is with regard to fixation of liability, the extent and sustainability of which are under challenge. It was after considering the appeal, that the Tribunal passed the interim order by way of Ext.P2 directing to satisfy a portion of the said liability, to the extent as specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
