Sapphire Media LTD vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court held that the grounds presented by the applicant-petitioner for review of the order dated May 29, 2023, could not be accepted. The Court found that the applicant failed to plead or point out any new fact or circumstance that was not within its knowledge or could not have been brought before the Court even with due diligence at the time of the original order. Furthermore, no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record was pleaded or pointed out. The reasons provided were not considered sufficient for recalling the order. The Court noted that the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn the writ petition with liberty to avail alternative remedies and could not subsequently seek recall on grounds that were already within its knowledge and could have been raised in the writ petition. However, the Court did identify an inadvertent error in its previous order regarding the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal. The previous order stated that the limitation would start from the day of uploading the signed order, but it was intended to start from the day of passing the order. Therefore, the Court modified its previous order to clarify that the limitation for filing the appeal would commence from May 29, 2023, the date of passing the order.

Facts

The applicant-petitioner, Sapphire Media Ltd, filed a writ petition (CWP-11675-2023) challenging an order under the CGST Act, 2017. On May 29, 2023, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition, seeking liberty to avail an alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for review/recall of the May 29, 2023 order. The grounds for review were that the petitioner inadvertently failed to inform the Court that the impugned order violated procedural norms and principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided, and the show cause notice was not signed by the proper officer, rendering the order without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought review based on these grounds, claiming a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant-petitioner has established sufficient grounds for the review or recall of the order dated May 29, 2023, under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, based on the alleged procedural violations and lack of jurisdiction in the original impugned order. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order dated May 29, 2023, should be reviewed and recalled because, at the time of withdrawal, it failed to bring to the Court's notice that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the CGST Act, 2017, and principles of natural justice. Specifically, it contended that no opportunity of hearing was granted, and the show cause notice was not signed by the proper officer, thus divesting the concerned officer of jurisdiction. These were presented as grounds for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State of Haryana or the other respondent. However, the Court's reasoning implicitly addresses the revenue's position by examining the petitioner's grounds for review.