Case Law Details
Elora Tobacco Company Limited Vs Union of India of Indirect Taxes (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The present review petition is nothing but a misuse of the process of law and wasting valuable time of the court with the intention to take one more chance instead of approaching the Supreme Court of India. Hence, the review petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited in the account of M.P. State Legal Services Authorities.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking review/recalling of the order dated 21.07.2022 whereby the writ petition no.23624/202 1 has been dismissed. . By way of writ petition no.23624/2021 the petitioner challenged the action of the respondents whereby they called the Chartered Engineer in the factory premises to assess the production capacity of the cigarette manufacturing machine. This court has dismissed the writ petition relying on section 145 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 which gives authority to the respondents to seek an opinion from an expert. The petitioner has raised various grounds that the aforesaid writ petition was ought to have been allowed as the entire search was not conducted by a proper officer to determine and verify the production capacity of the machine is clearly outside section 67 (1) of the CGST Act.
On the basis of the search conducted by the respondent, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the matter is pending before the adjudicating authority. So far the validity of the report in respect of the capacity of the machine is concerned same is liable to be considered by the adjudicating authority. The petitioner may assail the validity of the opinion/ report given by the Chartered Engineer.
Both the writ petitions were argued at length by Shri Malhotra, and after hearing the parties Writ petition No.23618/2021 was allowed and Writ petition No.23624/2021 was dismissed.
So far, the scope of review is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Haridas Vs. Usha Rani Banik and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 78 in paragraphs 13 and 20 has held as under:-
“13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it “may make such order thereon as it thinks fit”. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing “on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason”. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection. This Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P.1 held as follows: (SCR p. 186)
“[T]here is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by ‘error apparent’. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. … where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.”
20. When the aforesaid principles are applied to the background facts of the present case, the position is clear that the High Court had clearly fallen in error in accepting the prayer for review. First, the crucial question which according to the High Court was necessary to be adjudicated was the question whether Title Suit No. 201 of 1985 (sic 1 of 1986) was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This question arose in Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 and was irrelevant so far as Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 is concerned. Additionally, the High Court erred in holding that no prayer for leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was made in the plaint in Title Suit No. 201 of 1985. The claim of oral agreement dated 19-8-1982 is mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, and at the end of the plaint it has been noted that the right to institute the suit for specific performance was reserved. That being so, the High Court has erroneously held about infraction of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This was not a case where Order 2 Rule 2 CPC has any application.”
The scope of review is very limited only to the extent of an error on the face of the record.
Shri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on advance notice submits that in compliance with the directions issued in writ petition no.23618/2021 immediately the machine as well as DG sets have been released to the petitioner.
The present review petition is nothing but a misuse of the process of law and wasting valuable time of the court with the intention to take one more chance instead of approaching the Supreme Court of India. Hence, the review petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited in the account of M.P. State Legal Services Authorities.
The receipt of the deposit be filed in this review petition within one month.
