2024 (11) TMI 578 - HC - GST

Court Upholds Ruling: No Interest on Late Tax for FL3 Licensees During Covid Lockdown, Finality Emphasized.

STATE OF KERALA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ARREAR RECOVERY) TAX PAYER SERVICE, COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Versus KMA RESORTS PVT. LTD

The HC dismissed the review petition, affirming the original Judgment exempting FL3 licensees from interest on delayed tax payments during the Covid ... Seeking review of the Judgment and Order - error apparent on the face of the record - HELD THAT:- Review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there an is error apparent on the face of the record. This Court has considered each and every document and the submissions while rendering the Judgment HARBOUR HOTELS [2023 (11) TMI 1305 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. Furthermore, these documents were not part of the pleadings. Review does not mean rehearing or appeal. There are no error apparent on the face of the record which warrants this Court to reconsider this Judgment under review - There is no substance in this review petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Issues:Review of Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 regarding liability to pay interest for delayed filing of returns and payment of turnover tax during the Covid lockdown period.Analysis:The High Court considered a review petition seeking review of a Judgment and Order passed in a batch of writ petitions. The Judgment under review exempted FL3 licensees from paying interest for delayed filing of returns and payment of turnover tax during specific periods related to the Covid lockdown. The Court examined documents and submissions from both parties before issuing the initial Judgment. The review petitioner, a Special Government Pleader, argued that there was an error on record, claiming that the tax reduction from 10% to 5% applied beyond the Covid lockdown period, as per a Cabinet decision. The petitioner contended that although Bar attached Hotels were exempt from paying 5% tax, they were still liable for the 10% tax and interest on delayed payments. The petitioner referred to Annexures (A) and (B) containing the Cabinet Note and decision. On the other side, the respondent's counsel argued that the Cabinet decision specifically required Bar attached Hotels to pay 5% turnover tax during the lockdown period, supported by Exhibit P-2. The respondents had already remitted the tax within the extended timeline. The Court found no error on record warranting a review, emphasizing that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent errors and not for rehearing or appeal. The Court stressed the importance of finality in litigation and dismissed the review petition, concluding that the initial Judgment was well-considered based on the evidence and submissions presented.This case involved a dispute over the interpretation of a Cabinet decision regarding the turnover tax rate for Bar attached Hotels during the Covid lockdown period. The review petitioner argued that the tax reduction from 10% to 5% applied beyond the specified period, leading to confusion over the liability of FL3 licensees. The respondent contended that the Cabinet decision clearly mandated a 5% tax rate during the lockdown period, as evidenced by Exhibit P-2. The Court carefully analyzed the arguments and documents presented by both parties before rendering the initial Judgment. The Court emphasized the limited scope of review jurisdiction, highlighting that it is not meant for a rehearing or appeal but to correct clear errors on record. The Court found no such error in the case at hand, as the initial Judgment was based on a thorough consideration of all relevant factors and evidence. The dismissal of the review petition underscored the importance of upholding the finality of judicial decisions and the need for a well-founded basis to warrant a review.