M/S Mahesh Steel Corporation, Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court dismissed the Review Applications filed by the Union of India. The Court found no ground to review its earlier judgment dated 04.11.2019, which was reiterated in the judgment dated 20.12.2019. The Court noted that its earlier judgment had already considered the arguments of the petitioners and found that the unutilized credit of duties/taxes paid under erstwhile laws was a vested right that could not be taken away on procedural or technical grounds. The Court had relied on its own findings, as well as similar views expressed by the Delhi High Court. The Court held that the mere fact that the Gujarat High Court had stayed the implementation of its order in review was not a sufficient ground to review the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment. The Court suggested that the appropriate remedy for the Revenue would be to approach the Supreme Court by filing an appeal. The Court dismissed the present review applications in terms of its earlier dismissal of a similar review application (RA-CW No. 479 of 2019 in CWP No. 4648 of 2019) decided on 29.11.2019.

Facts

The Union of India (UOI) filed seven Review Applications seeking to review judgments passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. These judgments, in turn, allowed writ petitions filed by various companies, including M/s. Mahesh Steel Corporation. The original writ petitions directed the respondents (UOI and others) to permit the petitioners to file Form 'TRAN-1' by an extended date. The UOI's review applications were based on the argument that the Gujarat High Court, whose judgment was relied upon by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, had stayed the implementation of its own order while considering a review petition. The present review applications sought to revisit the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 20.12.2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment dated 20.12.2019, which allowed petitioners to file Form 'TRAN-1' by an extended date, should be reviewed, given that the Gujarat High Court, whose order was relied upon, had stayed its implementation pending review. (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: Not applicable as the petitioner is not filing the review application. Revenue's Argument: The UOI argued that the Punjab & Haryana High Court's reliance on the Gujarat High Court's judgment was flawed because the Gujarat High Court had subsequently stayed the implementation of its own order while considering a review petition. This, they contended, constituted a new ground for review. The UOI sought to re-agitate the matter based on this development.