Court Upholds Ruling: Licensees Liable for Interest on Delayed Tax Payments During Covid Lockdown.

The HC dismissed the review petitions challenging the previous judgment on FL3 licensees' liability for interest on delayed turnover tax payments during the Covid lockdown. The Court found no error justifying a review, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The initial judgment, which required adherence to tax obligations, was upheld.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the review of a previous decision regarding the liability of FL3 licensees to pay interest for delayed filing of returns and payment of turnover tax during the Covid lockdown period.

Review Petitions:
The review petitions sought to challenge the Judgment and Order passed in a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No. 32408 of 2023. The petitioners argued that FL3 licensees who filed returns before specific dates and cleared turnover tax were not liable to pay interest for delayed filings and payment of turnover tax during the Covid lockdown period.

Arguments for Review:
The Special Government Pleader contended that there was an error in the previous judgment, emphasizing that the tax reduction from 10% to 5% was not limited to sales during the lockdown period but extended to earlier years as per a Cabinet decision. He argued that FL3 licensees were still required to pay 10% tax and could claim a refund of the excess, making them liable for interest on delayed turnover tax payments.

Respondents' Position:
The respondents, represented by their counsel, countered that the Cabinet decision and subsequent notification mandated FL3 licensees to pay 5% turnover tax, similar to retail outlets run by the Beverages Corporation. They asserted that the tax was remitted within the extended deadlines, and there was no error in the previous judgment that warranted review.

Judicial Review:
The Judge highlighted the limited scope of review jurisdiction, stating that it should only be exercised in cases of an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court had thoroughly examined all documents and submissions before issuing the initial judgment. Emphasizing that review is not a rehearing or appeal, the Judge concluded that there was no need to reconsider the decision as there was no error justifying a review. The review petitions were dismissed for lack of substance.

---