TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t "Tribunal"], whereby twelve review applications preferred by the petitioner for various tax periods were dismissed. 1.1 These review applications i.e., Misc. Application Nos. 455466/ATVAT/2022 were filed on 31.05.2022. 2. The petitioner had, via the aforesaid applications, sought suo motu review of the Tribunal's judgment dated 28.07.2014. 3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the review applications, the petitioner instituted the instant writ petition. 3.1 The instant writ petition came up for hearing before us, for the first time, on 08.08.2022. 3.2 On that date, after hearing the counsel for the parties i.e., Mr Ashok Kumar Babbar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr Rajeev Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cellaneous applications were dismissed by the Tribunal, on 06.06.2022. 7. We have asked Mr Rajeev Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, as to whether any steps towards recovery of tax, interest and penalty had been taken against the petitioner, since the petitioner had not approached the Court along with others, by way of a statutory appeal. 7.1 Mr Aggarwal says that he will have to take instructions in the matter. 8. Perhaps, one of the reasons would be that the order of the Appellate Tribunal did not subsist in the eyes of law..." 4. Mr Aggarwal says, that the respondents/revenue are unable to retract the steps taken towards recovery of the demand raised against the petitioner, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al questions of law raised on behalf of the assessees were common, what was considered for the disposal of the appeals were the facts, albeit illustratively, obtaining in STA 76/2014 and STA 26/2015. 10. The petitioner, it appears, woke up rather late in the day, and having realized that the demand against it was outstanding on account of the recovery proceedings that had been initiated against it, decided to take corrective measures. 11. It is in this backdrop, that twelve miscellaneous applications were filed, to call upon the Tribunal to suo motu review its judgment dated 06.08.2014. 12. Mr Babbar says, that since the substantial question of law raised before this Court has been decided in favour of the assessees, the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner's case could possibly lead to a different result. 16. On merits, the broad issue which arose for consideration of this Court was whether the respondents/revenue were right in contending that the assessees were required to reverse input tax credits claimed by them on purchases made, on account of credit notes issued by selling dealers, despite the selling dealers having confirmed, that they had not reduced their output tax liabilities. 16.1 This issue, as indicated above, has been decided in favour of the assessees. 17. Thus, having regard to the overall circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 17.1 It is ordered accordingly. 18. The demand created against the petitioner/asse....