M/S. Titan Intech Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13818 of 2024, challenging an order passed by the respondent-State Tax authority. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 of 2025 seeking a review of the order dated 02.01.2025 passed in the said writ petition. The review was sought on the sole ground that the petitioner intended to challenge the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, upon being queried by the Bench, the petitioner's counsel could not identify any prayer in the original writ petition that sought to assail the constitutionality of the said statutory provision.

Held

The Court held that no case was made out to exercise review jurisdiction. The petitioner's counsel, when specifically asked by the Bench, could not point to any prayer in the original writ petition that challenged the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The review application was therefore dismissed on the ground that the intended challenge was not reflected in the pleadings of the writ petition. The Court did not decide on the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) itself, as the issue was not properly raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for exercising review jurisdiction to challenge the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when such a challenge was not pleaded in the original writ petition? The petitioner argued that the review was sought on the singular ground of challenging the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017. The revenue or State did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment.