2023 (1) TMI 789 - HC - GST

State's review application dismissed for attempting to re-argue previously decided GST transition tax deduction issue under Section 140(1) TNGST Act

The Madras HC dismissed the State's review application seeking reversal of transitioned tax deducted at source under Section 140(1) of TNGST Act. The ... Reversal of transitioned tax deducted at source (TDS) under Section 140(1) of TNGST Act - HELD THAT:- The only ground re-argued is that transition is unavailable where credit is not admissible as ITC under this Act as per the proviso to Section 140(1)(i). This very argument has been considered by this Court in paragraph 4 & 5 of order dated 26.02.2021 [2021 (4) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein the provisions of Section 140 along with the proviso have been extracted - That apart, reference has been made to the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of Magma Fincorp Limited Vs State of Telangana [2019 (5) TMI 786 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] that dealt specifically on the interplay between Section 141 and the applicable provisions in the Telangana Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 that are in para-materia with the relevant provisions under the Tamil Nadu GST Act. In the present case, it is quite evident that the attempt of the State is to re-agitate the same issue as was raised and considered in the original round of litigation. If at all the Department believes that the conclusion arrived at earlier was contrary to the legal position, then review is not the appropriate remedy - there are no merit in the applications for review and dismiss the same. Application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Review of the order dated 26.02.2021.2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 140(1) and its proviso under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act).3. Jurisdiction and scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Review of the order dated 26.02.2021:The petitioners, who are dealers under the TNGST Act, sought the quashing of orders reversing the transitioning of tax deducted at source (TDS) under Section 140(1) of the Act. The court had previously decided in favor of the assessees in an earlier batch of writ petitions on 26.02.2021. The Revenue filed eight applications seeking a review of this order. The court emphasized that the scope of interference under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC is limited to cases where an apparent error has been made, which should be either a grave omission or a misappreciation in the actual position leading to the exposition of the law.2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 140(1) and its proviso under the TNGST Act:The main argument raised by the Revenue was the effect and applicability of the proviso to Section 140(1) of the Act, which states that transition is unavailable where credit is not admissible as Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Act. This argument had been considered by the court in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order dated 26.02.2021, where the provisions of Section 140 along with the proviso were extracted. The court referenced the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of Magma Fincorp Limited Vs State of Telangana, which dealt with the interplay between Section 141 and the applicable provisions in the Telangana Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, that are in para-materia with the relevant provisions under the Tamil Nadu GST Act.3. Jurisdiction and scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC:The court reiterated the principles for the exercise of review jurisdiction as laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, which include grounds such as the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and any other sufficient reason. The court cited several precedents, including S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy, Yashwant Sinha and Others Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, and Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. L.T.Governor of Delhi, to emphasize that a review is not an appeal in disguise and lies only for patent error. The court found that the grounds raised in the review applications did not make the slightest pretence of pleading any acceptable ground for review and were merely an attempt to re-agitate the same issue considered in the original round of litigation.Conclusion:The court dismissed the review applications, finding no merit in them and reiterating its conclusion in the order dated 26.02.2021. The writ petitions were allowed, and the earlier order was taken to be passed in these writ petitions as well. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.