Etrade Marketing PVT LTD vs. CBIC And Ors

Held

The Court dismissed the Review Application. The Court found no grounds to review its prior judgment. Firstly, it noted that the respondents were attempting to re-agitate the matter, which is not permissible within the parameters of a review. Secondly, the Court reiterated its findings from the main judgment (dated November 4, 2019, in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd.), emphasizing that unutilized credit arising from duties/taxes paid under erstwhile Acts is a vested right that cannot be taken away on procedural or technical grounds. The Court acknowledged that its findings were fortified by the Gujarat High Court's view but also relied on the Delhi High Court's similar view. The Court held that the stay granted by the Gujarat High Court in its review proceedings was not a sufficient ground for this Court to review its own judgment. The Court suggested that the appropriate remedy for the Revenue would be to approach the Supreme Court by filing an appeal. The Court also noted the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, further reinforcing its decision.

Facts

This case concerns a Review Application filed by respondents (Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs and others) seeking to review a prior judgment of the High Court dated December 20, 2019. In that prior judgment, the Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Etrade Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to file Form 'TRAN-1' by an extended date. The respondents' counsel conceded that a previous Review Application by the Union of India had been dismissed by the Court on November 29, 2019. Furthermore, the counsel admitted that a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the main order in a related case (Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) had also been dismissed by the Supreme Court on February 28, 2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should review its prior judgment dated December 20, 2019, which allowed the petitioner to file Form 'TRAN-1' by an extended date, considering that the respondents sought to re-agitate the matter and relied on a stay granted by the Gujarat High Court in a review of its own judgment. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner did not file any arguments as this was a review application by the respondents. However, the prior judgment in CWP No. 36675 of 2019, which the respondents sought to review, was based on the principle that unutilized credit under erstwhile laws is a vested right that cannot be lost on procedural or technical grounds, citing Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court had also relied on views from the Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which this Court had relied upon, was itself under review, and the Gujarat High Court had stayed its implementation. They contended that this stay warranted a review of this Court's decision.