Statutory review limits barred condonation of delay and prevented reopening an export-linked input tax credit claim.

Under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, delay in filing a review petition could not be condoned because the statute fixed a one-year review period without any express power to extend time, and the court declined to import the Limitation Act. Review was also confined to the statutory grounds of discovery of new or important matter despite due diligence, and that threshold was not met. The attempt to reopen clarification proceedings and secure input tax credit on an export-related stock transfer claim was therefore outside review jurisdiction, leaving the earlier order undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in filing the review petition could be condoned under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. (ii) Whether the review petition was maintainable on the statutory grounds available for review and on the merits of the export-related claim.

Issue (i): Whether delay in filing the review petition could be condoned under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The scheme of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was examined alongside the position under the Central Excise Act as considered in Hongo India and the different scheme noticed in the Himachal Pradesh VAT enactment in Dehar Power House Circle. The Act expressly provided condonation in several appellate and revisional provisions, but for review applications a period of one year was fixed without any accompanying power to condone delay. That legislative design was treated as indicating exclusion of any further condonation power for review.

Conclusion: Delay in filing the review petition could not be condoned and the issue was answered against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the review petition was maintainable on the statutory grounds available for review and on the merits of the export-related claim.

Analysis: Review was confined to discovery of new or important facts which, despite due diligence, were not within knowledge or could not be produced earlier. No such ground was shown. The attempt was to reopen the clarification proceedings and to secure a broader declaration that stock transfer from Tamil Nadu to support an export claim would entitle the assessee to input tax credit, even though the export order and documentary foundation were not established in the manner required. The review jurisdiction could not be used for such rehearing.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable and the substantive claim did not warrant interference; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The review petition failed both on limitation and on the statutory scope of review, leaving the earlier order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special taxing statute provides fixed time limits for review but omits any power to condone delay, the court cannot import the Limitation Act to enlarge time; review is also confined strictly to the specific statutory grounds and cannot be used as a rehearing on facts.

---