Advocates Are Expected To Act With Some Sense Of Responsibility: Allahabad HC Deprecates Disrespectful Drafting Of Review Petitions
The Allahabad High Court observed that advocates were expected to act with a sense of responsibility and to ensure the dignity of the Court while drafting review applications.
The Lucknow Bench deprecated the disrespectful manner in which a review application was drafted. The petition alleged that the Court had “blindly believed the stand of the revenue.” The Bench called out such allegations as not just being incorrect, but also disrespectful towards the Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “Although a litigant is well within its right to challenge the validity of any order in accordance with the law and in case the order suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record, the litigant would be well within its right to say so, but while assailing the orders passed by the Constitutional Court, the learned Advocates are expected to act with some sense of responsibility and to ensure the dignity of the Court even while contending that the order passed by the Court suffers from a patent error.”
Advocate Anurag Mishra represented the applicant.
The petitioner had filed a GSTR 3B in 2019. However, a subsequent survey of the place of business by the Special Investigation Branch revealed discrepancies in the inward supplies claimed from three firms.
The Special Investigation Branches found the firms were non-existent and bogus, leading to the discovery of fraudulent claims in Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.). The adjudicating authority declined the benefit of I.T.C. to the petitioner and imposed penalty on the petitioner and fixed the liability of interest also.
Upon challenge, while deciding the petition, the Court held that Section 16 (2) (b) of the GST Act provided that no registered person was entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods unless he has received the goods. The Court had held that merely because the firm was registered on the date of transaction, it cannot be said that the department was bound to give I.T.C. benefit to the petitioner, even though it has been revealed later on the firm was non-existent and it could not have made any actual supplies.
Consequently, the Bench in their review stated, “Even while advancing submissions in support of review application, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any specific material which was placed before the Court while arguing the writ petition and which has not been taken into consideration by this Court while passing the order dated 14.05.2024. Therefore, the ground that this Court did not deal with the material presented by the petitioner on record, is without any substance.”
The Court pointed out that the applicant was well within the right to challenge the validity of any order per the law, but “while assailing the orders passed by the Constitutional Court...Advocates are expected to act with some sense of responsibility and to ensure the dignity of the Court even while contending that the order passed by the Court suffers from a patent error.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: M/S Rajshi Processors v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:39591)
