Union Of INDIA vs. G Nxt Power Corp
Original PDF →Facts
These review petitions were filed by the Union of India and other customs authorities, who were respondents in two earlier writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 2457/2019 and 2981/2019). The review petitioners sought to correct an alleged patent error in the High Court's judgment dated August 29, 2019. Specifically, they pointed to a sentence in paragraph 4 of the judgment stating that the counsel had consented to disposing of the writ petition. The review petitioners argued that this was an error as they had instructions to challenge the legality of a prior judgment and had referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in M/s. Amit Cotton Industries Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs. The respondent writ petitioners did not dispute the fact that the sentence was recorded but had no objection to its deletion and substitution to ensure continuity.
Held
The Court held that the sentence stating the counsel's consent to disposing of the writ petition was indeed an error apparent on the record, contrary to the stand of the review petitioners' counsel. The Court reasoned that the counsel for the review petitioners had indicated an intention to challenge a prior judgment and had referred to a relevant High Court precedent. Therefore, the Court directed the deletion of the erroneous sentence. In its place, the Court substituted a new sentence stating: 'Instead of calculating interest on the amounts to be refunded by both parties, this Court is of the view that refund can be directed to be made by the respondents herein after adjusting the amount recoverable from writ petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of by this judgment'. This decision was based on the understanding that the original judgment's conclusion regarding the refund and adjustment was intended, but the procedural aspect of consent was incorrectly recorded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the sentence stating that the counsel consented to disposing of the writ petition constitutes a patent error on the record, given the review petitioners' instructions to challenge a prior judgment and their reliance on the Gujarat High Court's decision in M/s. Amit Cotton Industries Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs? The review petitioners argued that the inclusion of 'consent' was an error apparent on the face of the record because they had instructions to challenge the legality of a prior judgment and had cited the Gujarat High Court's decision. They contended that the judgment should instead reflect the view taken by the Gujarat High Court, implying that the outcome in the present case should follow suit. The respondent writ petitioners, while not disputing the recording of consent, did not seriously contest the deletion of the sentence and agreed to its substitution to maintain the judgment's continuity.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R [ RP.505/2020, RP.507/2020 ] Dated this the 1st day of October 2020 Heard Adv.P.R Sreejith, Senior Standing Counsel for review petitioners and Adv.John Varghese for respondent.
The respondents in W.P(C) Nos.2981 of 2019 and 2457 of 2019 are the review petitioners. The review petitions refer to a few alleged patent errors on record in judgment dated 29.08.2019. But at the time of arguments, the emphasis of counsel for review petitioners, is on the concluding line in paragraph No.4 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “The counsel have consented to disposing of the writ petition by this order:”
According to Adv.P.R.Sreejith, he has while arguing the writ petitions, referred to the admitted dates and events in the matter, and also the judgment of High Court of Gujarath in M/s.Amit Cotton Industries Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs
RP.Nos.505 and 507 OF 2020 [(2019) 68 GSTR 226 (Guj)]. However, even as on that day, he had instructions from review petitioners that the Department was taking steps to challenge the legality or otherwise of the judgment dated 27.06.2019 in R/Special Civil Application No.20126 of 2016. Therefore, the inclusion of 'consent' in the judgment is an error apparent on the face of record, he requests the Court to delete the said sentence and judgment could be made, by referring to the view taken by the High Court of Gujarath and eventually, what could happen in M/s.Amit Cotton Industries Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs would follow suit in the present case as well.
Adv.John Varghese to the extent of consent recorded in the judgment, does not seriously dispute as to what happened in the Court while the judgment dated 29.08.2019 was dictated in the open Court. He has no objection for deleting the sentence excerpted above and substitute the sentences accordingly and ensure continuity in reasoning and conclusion in the judgment
RP.Nos.505 and 507 OF 2020 pronounced by this Court.
After taking note of the submissions and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the sentence excerpted above apparently is contrary to the stand of Adv.P.R Sreejith, hence directed to be deleted from the judgment dated 29.08.2019 and in its place the following sentence may be incorporated by substitution: “Instead of calculating interest on the amounts to be refunded by both parties, this Court is of the view that refund can be directed to be made by the respondents herein after adjusting the amount recoverable from writ petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of by this judgment”. Review petitions are ordered accordingly. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS
RP.Nos.505 and 507 OF 2020 - 6 -
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
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.