TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. 4. Considering the reason assigned in the delay condonation application, this Court is of the view that the delay of 21 days may be condoned. 5. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 21 days which has occurred in filing the instant civil review, is hereby condoned. Civil Review No. 71 of 2024: 6. The instant civil review has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for modification of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed in W.P. (T) No. 5475 of 2023. 7. Before proceeding to examine the principle of review as to whether the same is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not, it needs to refer herein the factual background which reads as under: A tender for Rural Electrification Works under Din Dayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojna, hereinafter referred as DDUGJY, project in XIIth Plan for Giridih, Bokaro and Dhanbad districts of Jharkhand was floated by JBVNL on 11.09.2015 being NIT No. 249/PR/JBVNL/15-16, 250/PR/JBVNL/15-16 and 251/PR/JBVNL/15-16. The writ petitioner on being selected as the successful bidder, two separate Letter of Awards (LoA) each for supply of materials and ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.2019 and 01.06.2022, the writ petitioner requested the appellant/respondent-JBVNL not to deduct the Income Tax Contingency from Supply Bills and to release the amount of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- held up as kept back on account of Income Tax Contingency by the Respondent JBVNL, respectively but the same having not been paid heed by the appellant/respondent-JBVNL, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(T) No. 5475 of 2023. 8. It is evident on the basis of the factual background that the matter was adjudicated by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 08.04.2024 passed in W.P.(T) No. 5475 of 2023. The operative part of the order needs to be referred herein, which reads as under: "17. Any unjust retention of money or property of another shall be against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The unauthorized deductions from the running bills of the petitioner-Firm are patently illegal. Such deductions caused loses to the petitioner-Firm which filed its Income Tax retuns but was deprived of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- and thereby suffered business or alteast interest losses. On the other hand, the JBVNL was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity in law if the said amount is not deposited with the Income Tax Department. 2. In the counter-affidavit, the stand taken by the JBVNL that the aforementioned amount has been retained as "Keep Back Amount" for meeting the future liability under the Income Tax Act, 1961 also seems to be unjustified. As it appears on a cursory glance at the provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, once an amount is deducted towards TDS liability the same should have been deposited so that the assessee shall get the benefit thereof in his income tax return. 3. However, on the request of Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned senior standing counsel for the JBVNL, this matter is adjourned by one week to enable the JBVNL to take a conscious decision in the matter whether or not to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- deducted from the running bills of the petitioner. 4. For that purpose, this matter shall be posted on 21st March 2024." 20. In response thereof, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed stating that in terms of Clauses 10.1 and 10.7 of the General Conditions of Contract whereunder the Contractor is solely and entirely responsible for any taxes inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and, that too, knowingly and for no fault on its part. The litigation file that has been produced in the Court reveals that a decision in the context of the order dated 14th March 2024 passed by this Court has been taken at the highest level of the Managing Director of JBVNL. Therefore, we are of the definite opinion that the JBVNL must be saddled with cost of Rs.5 Lacs which shall be recovered from the Managing Director. 23. This writ petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms." 9. The instant review petition has been filed for review of the direction as under paragraphs-18 and 22. The direction has been passed as under paragraph-18 holding the writ petitioner entitled for interest for the withheld amount of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- per clause 10.7.4 of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015, casting liability upon the review petitioner who was respondent to the writ petition. 10. The direction has been passed as under paragraph-22 saddling the cost of Rs.5 lakhs to be recovered from the Managing Director, JBVNL which is another ground to file this review petition. 11. This Court has perused the prayer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this Court observed: 'A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ..... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality." 14. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17. It has been found by the Court from the review petition particularly with respect to the direction as under paragraphs-18 and 22, the instant review petition has been filed. Reference of supplementary affidavit has also been made wherein the ground has been taken that cost of Rs.5 lakhs which has been saddled to make payment is from the Managing Director but without hearing him the said direction has been passed. 18. Learned Senior Standing Counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has filed the instant review petition. 19. Since the law is settled that to review the order passed by the Court is very limited and order of review can only be passed in the circumstances of availability of certain conditions as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment rendered in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. which is pari materia to Rule 203 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, wherein, the proposition has been laid down to entertain the review, has held at paragraphs-16.1 to 16.8 which reads as under:- "16.1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found that this Court has passed the order holding the writ petitioner entitled for interest over the withheld amount of Rs. 2,90,32,000/- as per clause 10.7.4 of the Regulation, 2015. 23. Reference of the said regulation has also been made in the said paragraph. For ready reference, the same is being reiterated herein also as under: "10.7.4 If the consumer has paid any excess amount, it shall be refunded to the consumer within 15 days or, if consumer opts, be adjusted within two subsequent bills. The Distribution Licensee shall pay to the consumer interest charges at the rate equivalent to the delay payment surcharge as per tariff on the excess amount outstanding on account of such wrong billing from the date of payment till the date of refund or adjustment in subsequent bills." 24. It is evident from the said clause that if the consumer has paid any excess amount, it shall be refunded to the consumer within 15 days or, if consumer opts, be adjusted within two subsequent bills. The Distribution Licensee shall pay to the consumer interest charges at the rate equivalent to the delay payment surcharge as per tariff on the excess amount outstanding on account of such wr....