TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd The Honourable Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Haribabu Additional Govt. Pleader (Taxes) For the Respondent : None. ORDER Order of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J. Tax Case Revision is filed to revise the order of the Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated 26.03.2013 passed in C.T.R.A.No.2 of 2005, filed to review the order dated 14.11.2002 made in C.T.A.No.430 of 2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Coimbatore. 2. Short facts leading to the Tax Case Revision are that, the respondent herein, are the manufacturer of sugar and dealers in granite, molasses, fertilizer etc, and accessed on a total and taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed in C.T.A.No.430/02, dated 14.11.2002. The said review came to be dismissed on 26.3.2013, on the grounds that the State has not raised any valid ground for review and further held that if the revenue was aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, it should have filed a tax case, before this Court. Relevant portion of the review order, is extracted In the grounds of Review application, the Revenue has not given any fresh facts which were not presented before this Tribunal at the time of passing its order. The decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, in Geethanjali Mills vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Sankarankoil, relied on by the Revenue has been actually considered by the Assessing Authority and learned first appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the Review Application filed by the State on the ground that no fresh materials were adduced before the Tribunal when it is covered by this Court, rulings reported in 39 VST 247? 6. In support of the above substantial question of law, the Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore has contended that the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Additional Sales Tax is leviable for the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.07.1996, since the turnover exceeded ten lakhs. The Tribunal has failed to consider that enhancement of exemption from 10 lakhs to 100 crores, was made only with effect from 01.08.1996, by Amendment Act 31 of 96, and the threshold limit was increased only with eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 2(1)(a) was omitted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 37 of 1999. Section 2(1)(aa) was inserted, reproducing the very language of Section 2(1)(a), with slight modification in the quantum of taxable turnover and the rate of tax. Section 2(1)(aa) of the said Amendment Act, is extracted hereunder: The tax payable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959) (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act),shall, in the case of a dealer including the principal selling or buying goods through agents whose taxable turnover for a year exceeds ten crores of rupees, be increased by an additional tax, calculated at the following rates, namely :- Rate of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nimum price fixed under Clause 3 and the additional price determined under Clause 5-A, of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and such turnover shall be included in the total turnover of the dealer and the taxable turnover shall be arrived at accordingly for the purpose of this clause. Explanation III : 'Taxable turnover' for the purpose of this clause in respect of a dealer liable to pay tax under Section 3-G of the said Act shall be the total turnover. Explanation IV : 'Taxable turnover' for the purpose of this clause does not include the turnover of resale, taxable under Section 3-H of the said Act. Explanation V : 'Taxable turnover' for the purpose of this clause in respect of a dealer liable to pay tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. (ii) In Union of India v. Kamal Sengupta reported in 2008 (8) SCC 612, the Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 14 and 15, held that, 14. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
