More Retail Private Limited vs. State Of Kerala
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN,J: This review petition is filed by the review petitioner against the judgment dated 19.12.2023 in the O.T.Rev.No.49 of 2022. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that this Court omitted to consider the following points:- (i) The monthly return and month wise purchase which are uploaded in the Kerala Value Added Information System (KVATIS), (ii) Certificate dated 20.09.2021 issued by the Chartered Accountant which stated that “the Value of Total
Purchase
was captured
as Rs.16,03,54,279/- instead of Rs.5,37,35,122/-, which was in excess by Rs.10,66,19,156/- which pertains to Tax Free purchase of fruits and vegetables, fresh milk, staples, eggs etc. (iii) The calculation of difference regarding CST purchases comparing with annual return, audit report and books of accounts.
All these aspects were raised before the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. Both the authorities found against the review petitioner. This Court had dealt in detail all the issues raised by the review petitioner. In review,
R.P.NO.68 OF 2024 :-3-: the juri iction of this court is limited. As per Section 63 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act,2003, this Court has juri iction only to decide whether the appellate tribunal has decided the issue erroneously or failed to decide any question of law.
The issues now raised by the review petitioner are not new or important facts which were raised and omitted to be considered. This court, in the order sought to be reviewed had categorically found that the issue of variation of interstate purchase in annual return as well as the audited statement was not properly explained by the petitioner. The calculation of difference regarding CST purchases comparing with Annual Return, Audit Report and Books of Accounts, which are factual aspects, were rejected by the Tribunal, stating that the explanation given by the auditor in the Certificate was incomplete. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal, which is the fact finding authority has decided not to interfere with the matter. Hence, this Court held the issue against the R.P.NO.68 OF 2024 :-4-: petitioner. The Certificate dated 20.09.2021 given by the auditor was also considered and found that the explanation given by the auditor in the Certificate was incomplete and does not give a clear picture as to the present variation. The authorities, after elaborate consideration of the issues, were not inclined to interfere with all the issues raised on question of facts.
In Chhajju Ram v. Neki
[AIR 1922 PC 112], it was held by the Privy Council that analogy must be discovered between two grounds specified therein namely; (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; and (ii) error apparent on the face of record, before entertaining the review on any other sufficient ground. In several other cases, different courts have held that the party filing the application for review has discovered a new and important matter or evidence after exercise of due diligence, which was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree or order was passed, or on account of some
R.P.NO.68 OF 2024 :-5-: mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. In a recent decision in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer and Another [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406], the Apex Court dismissed the review petitions stating that the judgment sought to be reviewed does not fall within the scope and ambit of Review since the learned Counsel for the review petitioners have failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment, and have failed to bring the case within the parameters laid down by this Court in various decision for reviewing the impugned judgment.
We are also of the opinion that the points now raised were already considered by this Court. No new or important matter was discovered. Over and above the points argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reliefs were granted by this court. There is no error apparent on the face of record, to entertain the review petition. The reliefs sought for in the review petition do not come within
R.P.NO.68 OF 2024 :-6-: the outline of review. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, the remedy of the petitioner is to file appeal, in accordance with law. We are not inclined to entertain the petition for review. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE MBS/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.