M/S Rathi Tmt Saria PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Review Application is not maintainable. The Court noted that a bunch of 51 similar Review Applications filed by the Union of India had already been dismissed by this Court on January 10, 2020, in the case of M/s. Groupe SEB India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and Ors. The Court also observed that the GST Authorities' plea that certain judgments could not be brought to the court's notice before passing the order under review does not fall within the scope of review jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was conceded that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue against the main order dated November 4, 2019, had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on February 28, 2020. In light of these facts, the present Review Application was dismissed in terms of the earlier order dismissing the bunch of 51 cases.

Facts

This case concerns a Review Application filed by the GST Authorities (respondents) seeking to review a judgment dated November 4, 2019, passed by the High Court in CWP No. 9918 of 2019. The original writ petition, along with a batch of connected petitions, was allowed, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to file Form 'TRAN-1' by an extended date. The GST Authorities sought condonation of a 35-day delay in filing this Review Application, which was allowed. The Review Application itself was then considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Review Application filed by the GST Authorities is maintainable, given that similar review applications have been dismissed by this Court and the Supreme Court has dismissed an SLP against the original judgment. The petitioner argued that the GST Authorities are attempting to reagitate and re-argue matters that have already been decided, which is impermissible under the parameters for seeking review. They also pointed out that the GST Authorities have not filed any appeal or approached the Supreme Court against the original judgment, and instead have filed review applications, which could amount to contempt of court. The petitioner further contended that the plea of certain judgments not being brought to the court's notice does not fall within the scope of review jurisdiction. The respondents' counsel conceded that earlier review applications by the Union of India were dismissed and that an SLP against the original judgment had been filed.