M/S Triputi Commodities vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court acknowledged a factual error in its previous judgment dated August 2, 2019, concerning the status of the Petitioner's appeal. It clarified that the appeal was not disposed of on merits but was against a Tribunal order dismissing a waiver application. Consequently, the Court directed that if the Petitioner deposits the remaining 50% of the pre-deposit amount within two months, the appeal shall stand revived for decision on merits. Regarding the second contention, the Court held that the High Court's earlier order dated April 27, 2018, did not pass a positive direction to grant a waiver but merely directed the Tribunal to consider the Petitioner's financial condition. The Court found that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction by holding that pre-deposit is a statutory mandate and it could not grant a waiver. The Court concluded that the filing of the review petition was an attempt to re-argue the appeal on merits, which is not permissible. Therefore, the review petition was found to have no merit, except for the correction of the factual error.

Facts

M/s Triputi Commodities (Petitioner) filed a review petition against a judgment dated August 2, 2019, passed by the Rajasthan High Court. The Petitioner's primary contention was that the Court's previous order, which directed revival of their appeal upon depositing the remaining 50% of the pre-deposit amount, contained a factual error. The Petitioner argued that their appeal was never disposed of on merits but was against a Tribunal order dismissing their application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Petitioner also contended that the Tribunal erred by not following a prior High Court order dated April 27, 2018, which directed the Tribunal to consider the Petitioner's financial condition for pre-deposit. The Respondent is the Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court's judgment dated August 2, 2019, contained a factual error regarding the disposal of the Petitioner's appeal, thereby requiring correction in the operative part of the order concerning the revival of the appeal upon deposit of the remaining pre-deposit amount? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit, by failing to adhere to the High Court's order dated April 27, 2018, which mandated consideration of the Petitioner's financial condition? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: - The judgment dated August 2, 2019, erroneously stated the appeal was disposed of, when it was against a Tribunal order dismissing a waiver application. - The Tribunal circumvented the High Court's order dated April 27, 2018, by not considering the Petitioner's financial stability for pre-deposit. - The order dated April 27, 2018, had attained finality and was binding on the Tribunal. Respondent's Arguments: - The judgment did not contain an error apparent on the face of it regarding the Tribunal's decision. - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases. - The Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in deciding the application, as pre-deposit is a statutory mandate and it cannot grant a waiver.