M/S Triumph Auto Parts Distributors PVT LTD Gurgaon vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that there were no grounds to review its judgment dated November 4, 2019. The Court reasoned that the attempt by the Union of India was to re-agitate the matter, which is not permissible within the parameters of seeking a review. The Court reiterated its findings from the original judgment, emphasizing that unutilized credit arising from duty/tax paid under erstwhile Acts is a vested right that cannot be taken away on procedural or technical grounds, especially when the authorities possess complete records. The Court noted that while the Gujarat High Court judgment was indeed under review, this fact alone did not warrant a review of its own judgment, particularly as it had also relied on a similar view expressed by the Delhi High Court. The Court opined that the appropriate remedy for the Revenue would be to approach the Supreme Court by filing an appeal. Consequently, the Review Application was dismissed. The Court also noted that a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against a related order had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Facts

This case involves a Review Application (RA-CW No. 38 of 2020) filed by the Union of India (UOI) seeking to review a judgment and order dated November 4, 2019, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The original writ petition (CWP No. 25283 of 2019) had been allowed, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner, M/s. Triumph Auto Parts Distributors Pvt. Ltd., to file Form 'TRAN-1' by an extended date. The UOI's application for condonation of delay in filing the review application was allowed. The UOI's primary argument for review was that a Gujarat High Court judgment, relied upon by this Court, was itself under review and its implementation had been stayed. However, the counsel for the applicant conceded that a previous review application by the UOI on similar grounds was dismissed on November 29, 2019. Furthermore, a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against a related order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should review its judgment dated November 4, 2019, allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to file Form 'TRAN-1' by an extended date, given that the Gujarat High Court judgment, which this Court relied upon, was under review and its implementation stayed by that Court? Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner in this review application, as the counsel for the applicant (UOI) was heard. Revenue's Arguments: The primary thrust of the grounds/argument raised by the Union of India was that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, upon which this Court relied, had itself been taken up in review, and while issuing notice, the execution/implementation of the directions had been stayed by the Gujarat High Court. The Revenue sought to re-agitate the matter based on this development.