M/S Utkal Udyog vs. Commissioner, CT And GST

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner had not made out any ground for a review of the order dated 30th April, 2021. The primary reason for this decision was that the documents enclosed with the review petition were identical to those previously submitted with the writ petition. Crucially, these documents failed to demonstrate that the Petitioner's financial condition prevented it from depositing even 10% of the tax amount. The Court found no new material that was unavailable at the time of the original writ petition that would persuade it to alter its previous conclusion. Consequently, the Court found no basis to grant the review. The ratio decidendi is that a review petition, especially when filed with liberty to demonstrate financial hardship, must present new or compelling evidence to justify revisiting a prior order; mere re-submission of previously considered documents without substantiating the claimed hardship is insufficient. The review petition was dismissed.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Utkal Udyog, filed a review petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. This review petition was filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.10862 of 2021. The Supreme Court's order allowed the petitioner to file a review to demonstrate financial inability to deposit 10% of the tax amount, which would otherwise deny the right of appeal. The SLP itself was against an order dated 30th April, 2021, passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.15184 of 2021. The High Court noted that the documents submitted with the review petition were the same as those filed with the original writ petition and did not demonstrate the alleged financial inability to deposit the required 10% tax amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has demonstrated its financial inability to deposit 10% of the tax amount, as required to pursue its appeal, thereby justifying a review of the High Court's previous order dated 30th April, 2021 in W.P.(C) No.15184 of 2021? The Petitioner argued that its financial condition was such that it was unable to deposit 10% of the tax amount, and the Supreme Court had granted liberty to file a review petition on this basis. The Petitioner relied on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court. The Revenue (Commissioner of CT and GST and Others) argued, implicitly, that the Petitioner had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of financial inability. The Revenue's stance was that no new material was presented to warrant a review.