State Of Jharkhand Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Atibir Industries Co LTD Through Its Director Sandeep Kumar Sarawgi

Held

The Court held that the review petitioners failed to establish any grounds for review. The Court noted that the review petitioners sought to introduce a so-called communication of a resolution comment (Annexure-2) for the first time in the review petitions, stating it was not produced in the writ records due to inadvertence. However, the Court found it undisputed that this communication was neither annexed nor mentioned in the counter affidavits filed in the writ petition and was within the knowledge of the review petitioners at that time. The Court ruled that failure to place such a communication on record due to inadvertence cannot be a ground for review. The Court also reiterated that the original judgment did not direct a refund but left the refund application to be considered by the concerned respondent in accordance with law. Therefore, no error of record or newly discovered fact justifying a review was established.

Facts

The Union of India and others (petitioners) filed Civil Review No. 20 of 2021, and the State of Jharkhand and others filed Civil Review No. 30 of 2021, seeking review of a previous order dated January 4, 2021, passed in W.P(T) No. 4061 of 2019. The original writ petition directed the respondents to either open the GSTN portal for the writ petitioner, Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. (opposite party no. 1), to file a refund application (GST RFD-01), or to manually accept it. This was for unutilized Input Tax Credit pertaining to compensation cess for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. The direction was based on the finding that the resolution comment regarding technical difficulties was communicated to the petitioner for the first time through a counter affidavit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the review petitioners have established sufficient grounds for reviewing the order dated January 4, 2021, passed in W.P(T) No. 4061 of 2019, based on a communication of a resolution comment (Annexure-2 to the review petitions)? The review petitioners argued that the writ court erred by not considering a resolution comment dated March 25, 2019, which they claimed was communicated to the writ petitioner. They contended that this communication was not placed on record in the writ proceedings due to inadvertence. They relied on this communication as the basis for their review. The original writ petitioner (opposite party no. 1) argued that no grounds for review were made out. They highlighted that the review petitioners admitted that the communication in question was neither annexed nor mentioned in their counter affidavits filed in the writ petition, and that it was within their knowledge at that time. They also pointed out that the original judgment did not direct a refund but left the decision to the authority.