1969 (3) TMI 77 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of judgment under section 38(8) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Assessment of sales of motor spare parts as first sales or exempt second sales.
3. Interpretation of statutory provision regarding burden of proof for sales tax liability.
4. Grounds for review based on discovery of new and important facts.
5. Maintainability of review petition in light of subsequent Supreme Court judgment.

Analysis:
The judgment in question involves a review petition filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Madras, seeking a review of a previous judgment concerning the assessment of sales of motor spare parts as either first sales or exempt second sales. The issue before the court was whether the sales should be assessed as first sales, as done by the department based on unreliable accounts, or exempt second sales, as held by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and affirmed in the revision case. The Tribunal's decision was based on the preference given by dealers to locally purchased goods over those purchased from outside the State, following a previous decision of the court. The court dismissed the revision case filed by the Government, concurring with the Tribunal's decision.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court expressed a view in another case that the burden of proving sales tax liability exemption lies with the dealer, and in the absence of proof, sales should be assessed as first sales. The Government Pleader sought a review of the judgment based on this subsequent Supreme Court view. However, the court held that the mere expression of a different opinion by the Supreme Court does not constitute new and important facts warranting a review under section 38(8) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court cited established legal principles under Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, stating that the production of a new ruling or authority does not qualify as a ground for review.

Moreover, the court noted that the petitioner had the option to appeal against the judgment based on the Supreme Court's view but failed to do so within a reasonable time. As a result, the court found the review petition not maintainable in the circumstances and dismissed it summarily. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal procedures and timelines in seeking reviews or appeals based on subsequent legal developments.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the review petition, highlighting that the expression of a different opinion by the Supreme Court post the judgment does not constitute grounds for review under the applicable legal provisions. The judgment underscores the significance of timely appeals and adherence to established legal principles in seeking reviews of earlier decisions.