M/S Salasar Tradeco PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to invoke the power of review. The Court found that the Corrigendum Notification dated July 29, 2019, while important, did not fundamentally alter the legal position that the respondents had successfully argued. The Court reiterated its previous findings that the respondents' contentions regarding the necessity of appointing Proper Officers across the territory of India for specific purposes, including detecting foul play, were upheld. The Court also upheld the respondents' argument that Section 167 of the CGST Act was not attracted, and therefore, no Gazette notification was necessary for Annexure P/1 Circular. The Court further affirmed that the scope of Section 6 of the CGST Act was primarily related to assessment, not the appointment of Proper Officers for investigative purposes. The Court noted that the petitioners' attempt was to seek a 're-hearing,' which is not permissible under review jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the review petitions, emphasizing that review power is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and is not a substitute for an appeal.

Facts

This judgment concerns multiple review petitions arising from earlier writ petitions decided on November 20, 2019. The petitioners, including companies like M/s Mangal Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Salasar Tradeco Pvt. Ltd., and individuals like Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Shri Ravi Agarwal, had challenged certain actions and circulars related to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The core of the dispute revolved around the appointment of 'Proper Officers' and the validity of a circular (Annexure P/1) dated July 5, 2017. The review petitioners sought to re-argue their case, primarily due to an omission in bringing a Corrigendum Notification dated July 29, 2019, to the Court's notice during the initial hearings. This omission led to the Court's earlier decision being based on incomplete information.

Key Issues

1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the judgment dated November 20, 2019, considering the non-disclosure of the Corrigendum Notification dated July 29, 2019? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Circular dated July 5, 2017 (Annexure P/1) and the appointment of multiple/plurality of officers were validly challenged and considered by the Court in its previous judgment? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments (Review Petitioners): The petitioners argued that the Corrigendum Notification dated July 29, 2019, was crucial and its non-disclosure to the Court constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting a review. They contended that the Court's previous decision was based on an incomplete factual matrix. They also sought to re-emphasize their challenge against Annexure P/1 Circular and the appointment of multiple Proper Officers. Revenue's Arguments (Respondents): The respondents argued that the Corrigendum Notification did not alter the fundamental legal position regarding the appointment of Proper Officers. They maintained that Section 167 of the CGST Act was not attracted, thus negating the necessity for a Gazette notification for the circular. They further argued that the scope of Section 6 of the CGST Act pertained to 'assessment' and not the appointment of Proper Officers for detecting malpractices. They also submitted that any issue of simultaneous proceedings by different officers could be addressed by the assessee by bringing it to the notice of the concerned officers.