M/S. Arcelormittal Nippon Steel INDIA LTD vs. Principal Commissioner Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 770 of 2023) in a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 9290 of 2020) before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The application sought to modify a previous order dated January 9, 2023, passed by the Court. The modification pertained to paragraph 3 of that order. The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, was the opposite party. The core of the modification concerned the admitted position that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had modified an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated March 8, 2019, while approving the resolution plan filed by the petitioner.

Held

The Court allowed the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 770 of 2023). The Court directed that paragraph 3 of its earlier order dated January 9, 2023, passed in W.P.(C) No. 9290 of 2020, be modified. The modified paragraph 3 now reads: 'The further admitted position is that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal modified the order dated 8th March, 2019 passed by the NCLT while approving the resolution plan filed by the present Petitioner.' The Court also stated that the remaining parts of the order dated January 9, 2023, would remain unaltered. The reasoning for allowing the application was to correct or clarify the factual position as admitted by the parties concerning the NCLAT's order in relation to the NCLT's order and the petitioner's resolution plan. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can allow applications to clarify or correct admitted factual positions in their previous orders to ensure accuracy.

Key Issues

1. Whether paragraph 3 of the order dated January 9, 2023, in W.P.(C) No. 9290 of 2020, accurately reflects the admitted position regarding the NCLAT's modification of the NCLT's order approving the petitioner's resolution plan? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to modify paragraph 3 of the previous order to ensure it correctly stated the admitted facts concerning the NCLAT's intervention in the NCLT's order approving their resolution plan. No specific provision or precedent was cited in the provided text for this application. Revenue's Contention: The provided text does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the revenue or opposite parties regarding this interlocutory application. Their role was that of the opposite party in the writ petition.