TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Statutory timelines u/s56 WBGST Act and Rule 94 considered, omission not found; revision dismissed</h1> Dominant issue: whether the impugned judgment failed to consider statutory timelines (s.56 WBGST Act and Rule 94) such that it amounted to an error ... Timelines for review of order - recovery of refund - provisions like Section 56 of WBGST Act 2017 Act as well as Rule 94 of the connected Rules were not considered in the judgment under review - consequence of not adhering to the timeline of 60 days - HELD THAT:- Upon consideration of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Private Limited [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], it is found that the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in cases where attention of the court was not drawn to a provision of law and the court was oblivious to the relevant statutory provisions, the situation may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of record. Proceeding on such premise, it is found that the provisions of Section 56 were categorically considered in paragraph-44 of the judgment under review, where it was observed that the said provision, instead of mitigating the mandatory nature of Section 54(7), highlights the same. Moreover, the subsequent order passed in M.D. Security [2025 (5) TMI 2174 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a copy of which has been handed over to us, in the very second sentence records that it was passed in connection with an application seeking early hearing of the matter and merely recorded the submission of one of the counsel that an order had been passed rejecting the refund. This court had entered into the merits of the case, both on facts and law, while passing the judgment under review and had considered all the provisions of law cited by the parties at length, which is explicit from the judgment itself - the present case does not come within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Revision dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether the review application may be entertained to admit supplementary affidavit containing GST Council minutes and to reopen merits of the earlier judgment; (ii) Whether the earlier judgments holding that Section 54(7) of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017 prescribes a mandatory 60-day timeline (and consequences of non-compliance) was erroneous and requires review.Issue (i): Admissibility of supplementary affidavit containing minutes of GST Council meetings and scope to reopen merits in review proceedings.Analysis: The supplementary material sought to be placed consists of GST Council minutes not previously before the court and lacking statutory binding force; review jurisdiction is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter meeting strict standards, or comparable grounds; permitting fresh materials and re-argument on merits in a review would exceed the limited ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.Conclusion: The prayer to file the supplementary affidavit is refused and the review cannot be used to reopen the merits or admit the GST Council minutes.Issue (ii): Whether the earlier judgments conclusion that Section 54(7) prescribes a mandatory 60-day limit (with non-compliance vitiating orders) was per incuriam or otherwise requires review, including consideration of Section 56 and Rule 94 consequences.Analysis: The earlier judgment expressly considered Section 56 and the issue of depletion of the public exchequer; interlocutory orders relied upon do not negate binding precedent where a ratio is laid down; the Supreme Court authorities cited do not compel reopening where the provision was considered and the review does not disclose an error of the type contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.Conclusion: The earlier judgments limited proposition that non-compliance with Section 54(7)s 60-day timeline vitiates orders stands; review is not warranted to re-examine that conclusion or to treat Section 56/Rule 94 as altering that result.Final Conclusion: The review application is dismissed on contest and the attempt to introduce supplementary GST Council minutes and to re-argue the merits is rejected; the earlier judgment upholding the mandatory character of Section 54(7) remains authoritative for the issues decided.Ratio Decidendi: In review proceedings, fresh materials not previously placed before the court and non-statutory documents (such as GST Council minutes) cannot be admitted to reopen merits; where a judgment has considered relevant statutory provisions and framed a limited ratio that non-compliance with a mandatory statutory timeline vitiates subsequent orders, such a conclusion cannot be displaced in review absent an error apparent on the face of the record or equivalent grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
