1961 (9) TMI 59 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Valid constitution of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Review of the order passed by the Division Bench.
3. Bar of limitation for filing the review petition.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolves around the constitution of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal, which heard the appeal, was not validly constituted as the Chairman had retired, and his successor had not taken charge during the intervening period. However, the Court held that there was a presumption that judicial acts were regularly performed unless proven otherwise. The Court found no evidence to support the claim that the Tribunal was not properly constituted, thereby upholding the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. The petitioner sought a review of the Division Bench's order based on the alleged invalid constitution of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the grounds for review are limited by statutory provisions, and intentional withholding of evidence or deliberate negligence does not warrant a review. The Court emphasized that intentional withholding of crucial facts does not constitute grounds for review and that the petitioner was duly represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings.

3. Another crucial aspect of the judgment was the bar of limitation for filing the review petition. The Court highlighted that the review petition was filed more than a year after the Division Bench's order, exceeding the prescribed time limit. The petitioner's argument that the period of limitation should be calculated from the date of communication of the order was rejected, as the judgment was pronounced in open Court, constituting communication to the petitioner through legal representation.

4. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was also raised by the petitioner. However, the Court concluded that the case did not fall within the purview of Article 227, as the issues raised did not warrant interference under this constitutional provision. The Court dismissed the review petition, emphasizing that even if filed in time, the grounds raised were not maintainable for a review, and costs were imposed on the petitioner.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of timely filing, valid grounds for review, and adherence to statutory provisions governing the review process.