9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 121(r) of the Scheme substantiate the petitioner s case that it s liability was quantified for the purposes of Tax Relief under Section 124(c) of the Scheme. Even otherwise, the learned counsel, again because of a misconception of fact, did not urge the petitioner s case that it would be entitled for Tax Relief under the arrears category as envisaged under Section 124 (1)(c) of the Scheme. If the material provisions of a statute are not drawn to the Court s attention, there would be sufficient reason for review as mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Further, while the grounds urged as sufficient reasons for review must be analogous to the grounds specifically mentioned therein, the Courts must examine whether the grounds urged could be called analogous in the facts and circumstances of the case bearing in mind the restrictions contemplated therein i.e., due diligence and reasons beyond control are established. As such, an applicant to succeed on the ground of sufficient reason must establish reasons analgous to a mistake or error apparent on the record as also due diligence and best efforts and satisfy other conditions required under order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. It is reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on 15.11.2018 to the petitioner calling for its reply. The respondents issued notice dated 09.12.2019 to the petitioner under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to show cause as to why a sum of ₹ 6,53,93,365/- should not be taken as the taxable value for the period from April 2015 to June 2017 and an amount of ₹ 95,94,517/- should not be demanded and recovered as service tax, education cess and secondary and higher education cess payable on the tax value. There are also further demands in this notice towards ineligible credits. 3. The petitioner filed his declaration for Tax Relief under the Scheme on 12.12.2019. The third respondent by the order dated 09.09.2020, which is impugned in Writ Petition No. 11190/2020, rejected such declaration holding that the petitioner would be ineligible for Tax Relief under the Scheme because the investigation was not complete and there was no quantification when the final reminder was issued on 15.11.2018. This Court rejected the writ petition observing that the petitioner filed its declaration for Tax relief relying upon the show cause notice dated 09.12.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who had filed declaration in Form SVLDR-1 under the enquiry/investigation/audit category, could not have filed another declaration under the arrears category with the adjudication pending. 4.4 The stipulation that the liability shall be quantified before 30.06.2019 [which is necessary for Tax Relief under the enquiry/ investigation/ audit category as per the provisions of section 124(1)(a) of the Scheme] is not contemplated for Tax Relief under the arrears category given the provisions of section 124(1)(a) of the Scheme. 5. Sri. V. Raghuram, learned counsel who appears along with Sri Anish Acharya who was on record for the petitioner in WP No. 11190/2020, submits that the aforesaid relevant provisions of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 2019 and Section 121(r) of the Scheme were not brought to this Court s notice by mistake. If these provisions were urged, the outcome of the writ petition would have been different. If it is undeniable that the provisions relied upon by the petitioner would not only be relevant but would have brought about a different outcome, a case for review of the order dated 14.12.2020 is made out. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 753 . He relies on paragraph 90 in BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club which reads as under: Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words sufficient reason in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit 8. Sri. V. Raghuram submits that the expression, for any other sufficient reason in Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC is of wide amplitude and would include the ground that an order is passed under misconception of true state of circumstances. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in S Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (1993) supplement 4 Supreme Court Cases 595 and submits (relying upon the decision reported in Narain Das and others v. Chiranji Lal AIR 1925 Allah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and corrected . A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise . He also relies upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Shanmugam Servai v. Periyakaruppan Servai AIR 1996 Madras 411 wherein it is held that the expression, any other sufficient reason found in Order XLVII Rule 1of CPC, must be interpreted to mean a ground at least analogous to those grounds specified in such provision. The paragraph 5 of this decision reads as follows, The expression, any other sufficient cause found in Order 47 Rule 1 must be interpreted to mean a reason sufficient or ground at least analogous to those specified immediately before. It must be ejusdem generis to the reasons previously stated. There is a difference between the words, ejusdem generis and at least analogous . The Latin phrase ejusdem generis according to the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary means, of the same kind . The word analogous means bearing same; corresponds with or resembles to, similar in certain circumstances or in relation. So, the phrase ejusdem generis is more restricted than the word, analogous . The popular meaning of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which is inherent in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. This decision, which is reiterated time and again, define the expanse and limitation of the review jurisdiction. 14. The pith of the petitioner s case for review of the order dated 14.02.2020 in W.P. No. 11190/2020 is that its learned counsel, because of a misconception of fact, did not draw the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 2019 or Section 121(r) of the Scheme or the filing of the retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgement: G.L Gupta v. D.N. Mehta. (The underlining is by this Court) If Court s attention is not drawn to material statutory provisions, there could be review. Further, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v The Most Rev. Mar Poulose 1954 AIR SC 526 has declared that: It must be observed that under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XLVII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is argued that the learned counsel made a mistake in not putting out such ground for consideration, and because of such mistake the learned counsel also did not argue the significance of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2019 and Scheme on the question of quantification of the petitioner s liability upon filing of belated Form ST-3 Return for the purposes of the Scheme. 20. It is very obvious that the writ petition is dismissed without considering the material provisions of the statute and the Scheme despite the material being on record. Perhaps the provisions of the statute and the Scheme, now pressed into service could make a material difference to the outcome of the writ petition. It is said perhaps because the merits of the contentions are not presently examined except for the purposes of ascertaining whether sufficient reasons for review are established. It is undeniable that the attention of the Court is not drawn to material statutory provisions and the material circumstances. Thus, obvious sufficient reasons are established for review as envisaged under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC without calling for much probing. Therefore, this Court, answering the question for conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
