TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by an order dated 6th September, 1961*. T.C. No. 146 of 1959 was also dismissed by us by the same order*. The ground for review urged in this application is that we failed to consider certain documentary evidence produced before us during the course of hearing of T.C. No. 28 of 1959 and T.C. No. 146 of 1959. The petitioners submit that there is an error apparent on the face of the record which calls for a review. Since reported as P. Haji Abdul Wahab and Brothers v. Government of Madras [1962] 13 S.T.C. 824. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for review, T.R. A. No. 1 of 1959 for valid and cogent reasons. The evidence which was produced by the petitioner at the time of the hearing of the review application before the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order.' To so contrue the section is to put a premium on deliberate negligence and fraud and amounts to allowing a party to profit from its own wrong. We do not think that such a construction follows from the language used, which is more consistent with the view that the provision in section 12-A (6)(a) permits a review when through some oversight, mistake or error the necessary' facts, basic or evidentiary, were not present before the Court when it passed the order sought to be reviewed. It is entirely wrong to think that the sub-section permits a party to play hide and seek with a judicial tribunal........" In exercising the revisional powers under section 12-B of the Act, this Court will not permit any new evidence to be placed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioners that the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code can be called in and that under that provision a patent error can be corrected by way of review. In view of the special provisions and limited scope of review provided for under section 12-B(7) of the Act, the general power of review of this Court as a civil Court cannot extend to the proceedings under the Sales Tax Act. We are not expressing any opinion whether the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code can at all be applied. We need not consider as to what would be the position in the absence of the special provision for review enacted under section 12-B(7) of the Act. But it is quit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
