TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 29,565-3-3 from the gross turnover under rule 8(1)(g) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, as transport charges for the trucks and chassis sold at Secunderabad. The said claim for deduction was not conceded by the Sales Tax Authorities. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has, by its order dated 21st December, 1957, rejected the said claim for deduction. The petitioner-dealer preferred a revision to this Court. By an order dated 5th January, 1960, this Bench did not accede to the contention of the petitioner-dealer and confirmed the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The present petition is filed for the review of the said order of this Division Bench raising a question of law whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Andhra Pradesh[1960] 11 S.T.C. 451., which ruled that "the appellant was not entitled to ask for review..............by reason of his own deliberate negligence and intentional withholding of evidence." At the outset, we have to notice that the provisions of the Act are definitive of the limits within which a review is permitted. It is obviously so for the reason that a review is not ordinarily permissible under inherent powers. Vide Anantharaju Shetty v. Appu Hogada(1919) 37 M.L.J. 162. and Fernandes v. Ranganayakulu ChettyA.I.R. 1953 Mad. 236. Sri Rama Rao has contended that the constitution of the Tribunal directly cuts at the root of the order pronounced by it and that we could take notice of the fact that only two members com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, which heard the petitioner's appeal, was constituted in accordance with law and in the absence of anything apparent on the face of the record. Sri Rama Rao has relied on Kama Umi Isa Ammal v. Rama Kudumban and OthersA.I.R. 1953 Mad. 129. in support of his plea with regard to the constitution of the Tribunal. That was a case of the constitution of the Tribunal under the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 which inter alia provided that: "Each Tribunal shall consist of three members; one of them shall be a District Judge or an officer eligible to be appointed as a District Judge, another shall be a Subordinate Judge or an officer eligible to be appointed as a Subordinate Judge and the third shall be a Revenue Divisional Officer or an Officer eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it when it passed the order," the Supreme Court in the aforecited case observed that (at page 455): "It is, we think, doing great violence to language to say that an intentional or deliberate withholding or suppression of evidence in support of a plea or contention or a basic fact urged before the Tribunal, is comprehended within the expression facts which were not before it (Tribunal) when it passed the order.' To so construe 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 form 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 ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of intentional withholding tantamounting to deliberate negligence. We are further inclined to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the statutory provision referred to supra definitive of the limits of review may not admit of the question of constitution of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in a review petition. In the view that we have taken, any interference in review would not accord with the express provision of the statute and would not further the ends of justice. We have to say further that the application is also out of time as having been filed more than a year after the date of the pronouncement of the order of this Division Bench. We are unable to accede to the submission of Sri Rama Rao that the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner has sought to place before us particulars of filing the present review petition which, he stated, he could not submit when the case was heard. The further particulars sought to be placed are these as stated by the learned counsel: "Originally the review was filed on 3rd August, 1960, and was numbered as S. R. No. 25800 of 1960. The same was returned sometime in September, 1960. As the papers were lost, they were not re-presented. A petition for substitution of the said papers, as also a petition to condone the delay in re-presentation. were ordered on 23rd May, 1961, and the review petition was admitted after notice to Government Pleader on 31st May. 1961". The point sought to be made out on those averments is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
