1962 (1) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Review of judgment based on alleged error in consideration of documentary evidence. Interpretation of provisions regarding review powers of Appellate Tribunal and High Court under Sales Tax Act. Application of Civil Procedure Code provisions for review in Sales Tax Act matters.

Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to an application for review of a previous judgment by the High Court of Madras. The application for review was made on the grounds that certain documentary evidence was not considered during the original hearing. The Court noted that the power of review by the Appellate Tribunal is limited, and it cannot sit in appeal over its own decision. The scope of review by the High Court under the Madras General Sales Tax Act is defined under specific sections, preventing the introduction of new evidence during the review process.

The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision to emphasize that deliberate withholding or suppression of evidence is not within the scope of review. The judgment highlighted that the evidence in question was produced late in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and it was within the Tribunal's discretion to dismiss the review application. The Court clarified that the application for review should be based on facts that were not available at the time of the original judgment, rather than seeking to rectify mistakes apparent on the face of the order.

Regarding the invocation of Rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules for rectification of mistakes, the Court ruled that this rule does not apply to the High Court sitting in revision under the Sales Tax Act. Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that provisions of the Civil Procedure Code could be applied for review in Sales Tax Act matters, emphasizing that the scope of review by the High Court is governed solely by the provisions of the Sales Tax Act.

Ultimately, the Court found that the petitioner failed to establish a case for review based on the grounds presented, leading to the dismissal of the review application. The subsequent applications for stay of proceedings and rehearing were also dismissed as there was no legal provision to support them. The judgment underscores the specific and limited scope of review powers under the Sales Tax Act, emphasizing that the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not extend to such matters.