2024 (2) TMI 1216 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking review - error apparent on the face of record or not - rate of tax on Bar attached Hotels and shops - HELD THAT - Review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. This Court has considered each and every document and the submissions while rendering the Judgment in SREEVALSAM RESIDENCY M/S. SNEHA REGENCY A UNIT OF KOLLENGODE HERITAGE HOTELS TOURISM PVT. LTD. M/S HOTEL JEENA AND UDAYA BAR HOTEL ZODIAZ INTERNATIONAL SAMS PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND HOTELS P LTD DAHLIA TOURIST HOME VERSUS STATE OF KERALA STATE TAX OFFICER COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT STATE TAX OFFICER (ARREAR RECOVERY) AND OTHERS 2023 (12) TMI 109 - KERALA HIGH COURT . Furthermore these documents were not part of the pleadings. Review does not mean rehearing or appeal. There has to be finality to a litigation. This Court based on the submissions documents and evidences has rendered the Judgment sought to be reviewed. There are no error apparent on the face of the record which warrants this Court to reconsider this Judgment under review. There is no substance in these review petitions - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the review of a previous decision regarding the liability of FL3 licensees to pay interest for delayed filing of returns and payment of turnover tax during the Covid lockdown period.

Review Petitions:
The review petitions sought to challenge the Judgment and Order passed in a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No. 32408 of 2023. The petitioners argued that FL3 licensees who filed returns before specific dates and cleared turnover tax were not liable to pay interest for delayed filings and payment of turnover tax during the Covid lockdown period.

Arguments for Review:
The Special Government Pleader contended that there was an error in the previous judgment, emphasizing that the tax reduction from 10% to 5% was not limited to sales during the lockdown period but extended to earlier years as per a Cabinet decision. He argued that FL3 licensees were still required to pay 10% tax and could claim a refund of the excess, making them liable for interest on delayed turnover tax payments.

Respondents' Position:
The respondents, represented by their counsel, countered that the Cabinet decision and subsequent notification mandated FL3 licensees to pay 5% turnover tax, similar to retail outlets run by the Beverages Corporation. They asserted that the tax was remitted within the extended deadlines, and there was no error in the previous judgment that warranted review.

Judicial Review:
The Judge highlighted the limited scope of review jurisdiction, stating that it should only be exercised in cases of an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court had thoroughly examined all documents and submissions before issuing the initial judgment. Emphasizing that review is not a rehearing or appeal, the Judge concluded that there was no need to reconsider the decision as there was no error justifying a review. The review petitions were dismissed for lack of substance.