2017 (1) TMI 1560 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court recalls order, emphasizes unargued issues in writ petition review.

Maa Kamakhya Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Assam and others

The High Court allowed Review Petition No. 88 of 2013, recalling the order dated January 9, 2013, in W. P. (C) No. 1100 of 2009. The petitioner's failure ... Application for review of order dated January 9, 2013 - transformation of underground raw water into packaged drinking water - manufacture within the meaning of section 2(30) of the AVAT Act, 2003 - sales tax exemption - Held that: - although the petitioner had raised the plea of promissory estoppels and legitimate expectation to receive the benefit of exemption under the Industrial Policy of 2003 besides claiming its right to receive exemption on account of the manufacture of the plastic bottles, yet, the learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to advance arguments on those issues as a result of which this court did not have the occasion to consider the said issues on merit. The failure on the part of the petitioner's counsel to argue on the collateral issues raised in the writ petition having a material bearing in the outcome of the writ petition would amount to sufficient reason for reviewing/recalling the order dated January 9, 2013 Review petition allowed - The order dated January 9, 2013 passed in W. P. (C) No. 1100 of 2009 is hereby re-called. Issues:Review of judgment and order dated January 9, 2013 in W. P. (C) No. 1100 of 2009 and W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2009 regarding tax benefits under the Industrial Policy for packaged drinking water manufacturers.Issue 1: Review of Judgment in W. P. (C) No. 1100 of 2009The petitioner filed a review petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated January 9, 2013, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in W. P. (C) No. 1100 of 2009. The original petition challenged the order issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, regarding the eligibility of tax benefits for transforming raw water into packaged drinking water. The petitioner contended that the transformation should qualify as manufacturing under the AVAT Act, 2003, to avail tax benefits under the Industrial Policy. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that the transformation did not constitute manufacturing. The petitioner argued that the writ petition was dismissed without addressing other issues raised, such as the entitlement to sales tax exemption for manufacturing plastic bottles, jars, etc. The petitioner sought a review based on the importance of the unresolved issues to the petitioner's interests, citing legal precedents to support the request.Issue 2: Failure to Argue Collateral IssuesThe petitioner's counsel failed to argue on the collateral issues raised in the writ petition, including promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation under the Industrial Policy of 2003. Consequently, the High Court did not consider these issues on merit. The petitioner contended that the failure to address these crucial issues warranted a review of the judgment. Citing legal precedent, the petitioner argued that even a misconception of fact or law by the court or counsel could be sufficient reason for a review application. The High Court acknowledged the importance of the unaddressed issues and concluded that the failure to argue them amounted to a sufficient reason for reviewing the order dated January 9, 2013, in W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2009.Final JudgmentThe Review Petition No. 88 of 2013 was allowed, and the order dated January 9, 2013, in W. P. (C) No. 1100 of 2009 was recalled. The High Court noted that the review petitioner did not challenge the findings in the order related to W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2009. Therefore, no order was deemed necessary in Review Petition No. 89 of 2013. Both review petitions were disposed of accordingly, addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the unargued issues in the original writ petition.