The Union Of INDIA Through Secretary vs. M/S Planning And Infrastructure Development Consultants PVT. LTD.

Facts

The Union of India filed Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case (M.J.C.) No. 2113 of 2022 seeking modification of a previous order dated 25.07.2022 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (C.W.J.C.) No. 6795 of 2020. The original order had directed the petitioner (M/s Planning and Infrastructure Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd.) to approach the Union of India for redressal of their grievances. However, the Union of India contended that there was a typographical error and the petitioner should have been directed to approach the State authorities. The petitioner, on the other hand, sought to quash several orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central, State of Bihar, which were summaries in FORM GST DRC-07. The High Court noted that against statutory orders like FORM GST DRC-07, a representation for redressal is not the appropriate remedy, and the petitioner has remedies like Appeal, Review, or a Writ Petition.

Held

The Court held that it has the power to review its own orders to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors, drawing support from the Supreme Court's decision in Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court acknowledged that the previous order dated 25.07.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6795 of 2020 contained an error, as it directed the petitioner to approach the Union of India when the orders under challenge were issued by the State GST authorities. The Court decided to recall the said order and restore C.W.J.C. No. 6795 of 2020 on the file for a decision on merits. The Court reasoned that against statutory orders like FORM GST DRC-07, a representation is not the appropriate remedy, and the petitioner has alternative remedies. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts possess inherent power of review under Article 226 to correct significant errors and prevent injustice, especially when statutory remedies are available against the impugned orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court has the power to review its own order to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave and palpable errors, as contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the previous order dated 25.07.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6795 of 2020, which directed the petitioner to approach the Union of India, contained a material error requiring modification or recall? Petitioner's Arguments (Union of India in M.J.C.): The petitioner argued that there was a typographical error in the previous order, and the petitioner (M/s Planning and Infrastructure Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd.) should have been directed to approach the State authorities, not the Union of India, as the orders being challenged were issued by the State GST authorities. Opposite Party's Arguments (M/s Planning and Infrastructure Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in C.W.J.C.): The opposite party sought to quash multiple summary orders in FORM GST DRC-07 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central, State of Bihar. They contended that these statutory orders were erroneous and that their grievance required redressal.