Tata Steel Ltd. Vs Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow (Allahabad High Court)
Mere failure to cite a judgment does not, in and of itself, render the original judgment flawed. Review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgment; rather it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgment does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.301923 of 2010
1. I have perused the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and find that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay in filing the review application. Accordingly, the delay in filing the review application is condoned.
2. The delay condonation application is allowed.
Review Application
3. The instant review application preferred by the Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’) arises out of an order dated February 15, 2010 passed by this Court in STRE No. – 225 of 2002.
FACT
4. I have outlined the brief facts leading up to the instant review application below:
a. In STRE No. – 225 of 2002, the main question raised by M/S Tata Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revisionist’) was “whether in view of the definition of ‘purchase price’ under Section 2(gg) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UPTTA, 1948), the applicant having paid the amount of Rs. 5,56,81,000/- also for the purchase of plant and machinery, apparatus and equipment, the same ought to have been included in the ‘Fixed Capital Investment’ and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the said amount merely on the ground that the amount has been allowed as MOD VAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CEA, 1944). Other questions were also raised with regard to MODVAT allowed by the excise department.
b. The aforesaid question was answered by this Court vide its order dated February 15, 2010 in favour of the Revisionist.
c. Against the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by this Court, the Respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme
d. The aforesaid Special Leave Petition was dismissed as not pressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated September 9, 2010.
e. The Respondent filed the instant review application before this Court assailing the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by this Court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
