1956 (9) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
2. Review of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order.
3. Jurisdiction and inherent powers of the Tribunal to review its own orders.
4. Applicability of Rule 18(1) of the Madras General Rules.
5. Scope and limitations of the High Court's revisionary powers under section 12-B of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act:
The core issue revolves around the correct interpretation of section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The Full Bench was tasked with determining whether the term "facts" within this section includes both new facts and new evidentiary material supporting previously presented facts. The Full Bench concluded that the word "facts" should be interpreted broadly, encompassing both the principal facts to be proved (factum probandum) and the evidentiary facts (factum probans) that support them. This interpretation allows for the inclusion of new evidence supporting previously raised but unsubstantiated claims.

2. Review of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order:
The Appellate Tribunal initially allowed a review petition, resulting in the deletion of Rs. 65,623-13-0 from the turnover. The State objected, arguing that no new facts or pleas had been presented, making the review application invalid under section 12-A(6)(a). The Tribunal members had differing opinions: one member viewed the omission as a mistake apparent from the record, while another justified the review under the Tribunal's inherent jurisdiction to ensure justice.

3. Jurisdiction and inherent powers of the Tribunal to review its own orders:
The State contended that the Tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction to review its own orders apart from section 12-A(6). The Full Bench acknowledged that while there is no inherent power of review in subordinate courts and tribunals, section 12-A(6)(a) specifically grants the Appellate Tribunal the authority to review its orders based on facts not previously considered.

4. Applicability of Rule 18(1) of the Madras General Rules:
Rule 18(1) allows an assessing, appellate, or revising authority to rectify any mistake apparent from the record within two years of the order. This rule was invoked by one Tribunal member to justify the review, arguing that the oversight in not addressing the Rs. 65,623-13-0 was a rectifiable mistake. The Full Bench noted that Rule 18(1) is broader than section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code and corresponds to Order 47, rule 1, allowing for review on grounds of apparent mistakes.

5. Scope and limitations of the High Court's revisionary powers under section 12-B of the Act:
Section 12-B(1) allows the High Court to entertain revision petitions against the Appellate Tribunal's orders on questions of law. Section 12-B(7)(a) further empowers the High Court to review its orders based on new facts not previously considered. The Full Bench highlighted that the language of section 12-A(6)(a) and section 12-B(7)(a) is identical, suggesting that the Tribunal's power to review should not be unduly restricted. The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction is limited to questions of law, but it can remit cases to the Tribunal for findings on factual issues under section 12-B(4).

Judgment:
Following the Full Bench's interpretation, the High Court dismissed the State's revision petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete Rs. 65,623-13-0 from the turnover. The judgment emphasized that section 12-A(6)(a) allows for a broad interpretation of "facts," including new evidentiary material supporting previously raised claims. The Court concluded that the Tribunal acted within its statutory powers in granting the review. The revision was dismissed with costs, and an advocate's fee of Rs. 100 was awarded.

← Previous Next →