1977 (3) TMI 145 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can review its order under Section 22(7) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, based on a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Review of High Court Order Under Section 22(7) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957

Background and Arguments:
The review petitions were filed to determine if the High Court could review its order dated 4th February 1976, under Section 22(7) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision. The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court's decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which reversed the High Court's earlier decision, should be considered a "fact" not before the High Court when it passed its original order. They contended that the terms of sub-section (7) are unqualified and do not require the fact to be in existence at the time the High Court passed the order.

Counterarguments:
The Government Pleader for sales tax argued that the facts contemplated by sub-section (7) must be those in existence at the time of the transaction determining the liability for sales tax. A subsequent judgment by the Supreme Court is not a fact contemplated by that sub-section and was not in existence when the High Court rendered its decision.

Legal Framework and Interpretation:
The court examined the scheme of the Act, noting that under Section 5, sales tax is levied on the turnover of a dealer. Sections 6, 7-A, 8, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, and 22 outline the process of assessment, appeals, and revisions. Section 22(7)(a) specifically states that the High Court may review any order passed by it under sub-section (4) on the basis of facts not before it when it passed the order.

The court emphasized that the term "fact" refers to something existing at the time the order was passed. A review is a re-examination of a matter based on facts that were in existence but not before the court when the original order was made. The court concluded that facts coming into existence after the order cannot be grounds for review, as this would amount to passing a fresh decision on new facts, a power not conferred on the High Court by Section 22.

Judicial Precedents and Comparisons:
The petitioners cited Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and relevant Supreme Court decisions (Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax). However, the court noted significant differences between Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act. Section 34(1)(b) allows the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessments based on "information" which includes judicial decisions. In contrast, Section 22 deals with the High Court's revisional powers on questions of law and not the original assessment powers.

Conclusion:
The court held that a subsequent Supreme Court decision is not a "fact" within the meaning of Section 22(7)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The review petitions were dismissed, as the High Court cannot review its order based on facts that came into existence after the order was passed.

Disposition:
The review petitions were dismissed without costs, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 250 in both petitions.

Summary Judgment:
Petitions dismissed.