A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed against Tata Steel Limited, with respect to exclusion of MODVAT Credit from the Value of Capital Goods.
The instant review application preferred by the Commissioner Trade Tax, UP, Lucknow arises out of an order dated February 15, 2010 passed by the Court.
The main question raised by M/S Tata Steel Ltd. (Revisionist) was “whether in view of the definition of ‘purchase price’ under Section 2(gg) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (UPTTA, 1948), the applicant having paid the amount of Rs. 5,56,81,000/- also for the purchase of plant and machinery, apparatus and equipment, the same ought to have been included in the ‘Fixed Capital Investment’ and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the said amount merely on the ground that the amount has been allowed as MODVAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CEA, 1944).
Other questions were also raised with regard to MODVAT allowed by the excise department.
The aforesaid question was answered by this Court vide its order dated February 15, 2010 in favour of the Revisionist.
Against the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by this Court, the Respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The aforesaid Special Leave Petition was dismissed as not pressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated September 9, 2010.
The Respondent filed the instant review application before this Court assailing the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by this Court.
The counsel on behalf of Tata Steel contended that the review petition cannot be said to be maintainable on the basis of the sole ground taken by the Respondent. It is well settled that failure to place judgments cannot be a ground for review.
It was also submitted that, “Furthermore, the limited scope of review petition requires ‘an error apparent on the face of the record’. It is an admitted position that the two judgments referred to by the Respondent were not even placed before this Court and therefore, are not a part of the record. The basic requirement of ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, therefore is not even fulfilled in the present review petition.”
The Bench observed that, “Mere failure to cite a judgement does not, in and of itself, render the original judgement flawed. Review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgement; rather it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgement does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question.”
It was noted that, “What is also surprising to me is that although the ground taken by the Respondent to withdraw their Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was liberty to approach this Court since as per them the main question of law was not decided by this Court in its judgement on February 15, 2010, the said ground does not find any mention in the instant review application. The failure to articulate consistent grounds for seeking review calls into question the bona fides of the Respondent’s application”, the High Court Bench further observed.
“One would expect that if a significant aspect of the case was left unaddressed in a prior judgement, as alleged by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would be foremost among the reasons cited for seeking review. This inconsistent approach adopted by the Respondent could not be explained by them before this Court”, the bench further noted.
The words of Eminent Jurist Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s were borrowed, “unchecked review has never been the rule”, by the bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf before dismissing the review petition.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
