Facts of the Case

Carborundum Universal Ltd., having its office at Koratty, Thrissur, and represented by its Sr. Associate Vice President-Accounts and Commercial, had earlier approached the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C) No. 41045 of 2023 in connection with a tax demand raised against it by the Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kakkanad Range-1, Kochi, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs, Kochi. By order dated 07.12.2023 passed in that writ petition, the Court had directed the petitioner to make a further deposit of 20% of the demand assessed as per the assessment order within a period of three weeks, while directing that the remaining demand under the assessment order be kept in abeyance until disposal of the writ petition. Aggrieved by this pre-deposit condition, the petitioner filed the present Review Petition, R.P. No. 1326 of 2023, seeking review of the order dated 07.12.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the order dated 07.12.2023, directing a further 20% pre-deposit of the assessed tax demand, disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant review.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Sought review of the order dated 07.12.2023 requiring a further 20% deposit of the assessed demand within three weeks.
  • The order itself does not record any specific grounds urged by the petitioner beyond the prayer for review; no additional submissions are set out in the text of the judgment.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents were represented by counsel, but the order does not record any specific submissions made on their behalf in opposition to the review petition.

Court Order/Findings

  • Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 07.12.2023 that would justify its review.
  • The review petition was accordingly dismissed.
  • The Court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to move an application for modification of the original order dated 07.12.2023, if so advised.

Important Clarification

  • Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record; it is not a re-hearing of the merits of a pre-deposit direction made in a writ petition.
  • Dismissal of a review petition against a pre-deposit order does not shut out the petitioner from seeking relief altogether — the Court expressly left open the remedy of an application for modification of the original order.

Sections Involved

  • The order does not cite any specific statutory provision. It records only that the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the demand assessed as per the assessment order, with the balance demand kept in abeyance pending disposal of the connected writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 41045/2023.

Decision – In Favour of

Department/Revenue. The review petition challenging the pre-deposit condition was dismissed, and the original order dated 07.12.2023 requiring a further 20% deposit of the assessed demand stood undisturbed. The Court, however, left it open to the petitioner to seek modification of that order through a separate application.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes from this site are cited here, as the order does not discuss the merits of the underlying tax demand or any specific statutory provision that could be cross-referenced. Readers tracking pre-deposit conditions imposed in writ petitions challenging GST/central excise demands may find related posts on this site on the subject of stay and pre-deposit orders under the CGST Act, 2017.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  • Case No.: RP No. 1326 of 2023 (against the order in W.P.(C) No. 41045 of 2023)
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
  • Date of Order: 20.12.2023
  • Review Petitioner: Carborundum Universal Ltd.
  • Respondents: The Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kakkanad Range-1, Kochi; The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs, Kochi
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Advs. S. Anil Kumar (Trivandrum), Sabu C.J., Rahul A., M. Rajagopal
  • Counsel for Respondents: Adv. P.T. Dinesh

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.