Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 763 - HC - Service TaxRejection of declaration for Tax Relief under the provisions of Sabka Vikas [Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - mistake apparent on record or sufficient reasons for review - misconception of fact or not - Whether this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, must review the order on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner in not arguing the grounds (now urged) has made a mistake apparent on record in misconstruing the facts, or such circumstances would constitute sufficient reasons for review? HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 2019 or Section 121(r) of the Scheme substantiate the petitioner’s case that it’s liability was ‘quantified’ for the purposes of Tax Relief under Section 124(c) of the Scheme. Even otherwise, the learned counsel, again because of a misconception of fact, did not urge the petitioner’s case that it would be entitled for Tax Relief under the arrears category as envisaged under Section 124 (1)(c) of the Scheme. If the material provisions of a statute are not drawn to the Court’s attention, there would be sufficient reason for review as mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Further, while the grounds urged as sufficient reasons for review must be analogous to the grounds specifically mentioned therein, the Courts must examine whether the grounds urged could be called analogous in the facts and circumstances of the case bearing in mind the restrictions contemplated therein i.e., due diligence and reasons beyond control are established. As such, an applicant to succeed on the ground of ‘sufficient reason’ must establish reasons analgous to a mistake or error apparent on the record as also due diligence and best efforts and satisfy other conditions required under order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. It is recognized that the difficulty is not in stating the proposition, but in applying the same. The material was available on record is not articulated as a ground for review even in the pleadings. It is argued that the learned counsel made a mistake in not putting out such ground for consideration, and because of such mistake the learned counsel also did not argue the significance of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2019 and Scheme on the question of quantification of the petitioner’s liability upon filing of belated Form ST-3 Return for the purposes of the Scheme. It is undeniable that the attention of the Court is not drawn to material statutory provisions and the material circumstances. Thus, obvious sufficient reasons are established for review as envisaged under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC without calling for much probing. Therefore, this Court, answering the question for consideration in favour of the petitioner, opines that the order must be reviewed. Revision petition allowed.
|