High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

A Forensic Defeat Cannot Be Avenged By An Invitation To Have A Second Look : Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Application In Tata Steel MODVAT Credit Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court today dismissed the review application filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., against Tata Steel Ltd., underscoring the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The application sought to challenge the Court's 2010 decision which included MODVAT credits in 'Fixed Capital Investment' under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

The legal crux of this case revolved around whether certain expenses credited as MODVAT (Modified Value Added Tax) by Tata Steel Ltd. could be included in the 'Fixed Capital Investment' for the purpose of Trade Tax under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948. This interpretation was crucial for determining tax liabilities and the scope of deductions permissible under the Act.

Tata Steel Ltd. had initially succeeded in getting a ruling in their favor in 2010, which the Commissioner of Trade Tax sought to overturn. The primary contention in the review was the non-consideration of specific Supreme Court judgments during the original proceedings, purportedly leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Justice Shekhar B. Saraf's judgment meticulously outlined the principles governing review petitions. The judge emphasized, "A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon," quoting Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer to highlight that review is not an appeal and is constrained to rectifying only blatant errors apparent on the record.

Error Apparent on the Record: The Court noted that the arguments based on previously uncited Supreme Court judgments did not constitute an 'error apparent on the face of the record'.

Limited Scope of Review: It was clarified that review powers are limited, intended only to address palpable oversights and not to re-adjudicate settled matters.

Jurisprudence Cited: Multiple precedents were discussed, including 'Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma', where it was established that review cannot serve as a vehicle to re-litigate issues on merits.

Decision: The Court dismissed the review application, upholding its original decision favoring Tata Steel Ltd., reiterating the legal stance that MODVAT credits can be included in 'Fixed Capital Investment' for trade tax calculations under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Justice Saraf stressed the importance of judicial restraint and the finality of judgments, remarking, "unchecked review has never been the rule."

 Date of Decision: May 13, 2024

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

Similar News