Vodafone tax review petition: Govt's last shot to save face

Excerpts from After the Bell on CNBC-TV18 Watch the full show »

Hitesh Jain, partner at ALMT Legal spoke to CNBC-TV18 for an insight into the review petition that the government has filed in the Vodafone Tax case.

Below is the edited transcript of the interview. Also watch the accompanying video.

Q: What do you make of the government actually filing that review petition?

A: According to me, this is a last-ditch attempt being made by the government. Everybody is aware about the legal position that review is not like a routine procedure where you can again open the case or try to agitate the same fact. Unless there is a manifest or a patent error on the face of the order or there is some fact which could not have been produced before the court or which has been overlooked, only in the exceptional circumstances, the court examines the review or reviews its own order. So what I can see from this thing is that the stakes involved for the government are huge and the government is again trying to make a last-ditch attempt if it can salvage its position.

Q: As someone who has been tracking this case very closely, the grounds on the basis of which the income tax department has actually filed that review petition, what do you make of them for example say the Supreme Court did not interpret Section 9 properly?

A: According to me I don't think that is a substantial ground because at the end of the day interpretation is the power of the court and the court has given it's own interpretation. In fact the court has not only interpreted the provision, the court has looked at the structure also and the court has come to the conclusion on the basis of a sound reasoning. So all this are just an attempt or the grounds are formulated so as to make sure that they can have the order reviewed, but accordingly any which way you can put the ground, but unless and until like you show that there is a material error on the face, which is manifest on the face of the order, I don't really see the review petition will be any assistance to the government.

Q: Apparently, the petition also says that the Supreme Court order did not take cognizance of the fact that Vodafone had a controlling 60-70% stake in the company or the fact that it did not produce the Share Purchase Agreement in the first instance at the Bombay High Court. How substantial is this ground?

A: Well, I don't think that that is substantial because we represented Vodafone when the matter was there before the Bombay High Court. That time, the fact was that this agreement was not disclosed but subsequently the matter was carried in the Supreme Court and the agreement was disclosed ultimately when the orders were passed it was taken into consideration all the relevant fact. So the fact that the agreement is disclosed cannot be said that this is a fact which was previously unknown or this was something new fact that is been revealed. So I am not very interested if they want to open the review of on the ground that the agreement was not produced during the first round of the hearing.

Also watch the accompanying videos for his discussion on the topic with Gopal Jain, senior advocate at the Supreme Court.