1982 (2) TMI 299 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had the inherent power to review its earlier order.
2. Whether the Tribunal's order dated 1st November, 1976, was based on a mistake regarding the counsel's concession.
3. Whether the applications for review could be treated as applications for rectification of mistake u/s 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Summary:

Issue 1: Inherent Power to Review

The Tribunal reviewed its order dated 1st November, 1976, without relying on any specific provision in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (the Act), asserting it had inherent powers to do so. The court held that no court or Tribunal created under a statute has inherent power to review its earlier order unless explicitly conferred by the statute. This principle was supported by precedents such as Fernandes v. Ranganayakulu AIR 1953 Mad 236 and P.N. Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji AIR 1970 SC 1273. The court concluded that the Tribunal had no inherent power to review the order dated 1st November, 1976, and set aside the same.

Issue 2: Mistake Regarding Counsel's Concession

The Tribunal's order dated 1st November, 1976, was not merely based on any concession by the counsel for the dealer. The revised assessment for 1972-73 and assessment for 1973-74 were based on the recovery of 221 carats and 43 cents of diamonds, 19 slips of paper, and one pocket notebook from Devabhai M. Patel, a partner of the dealer. The Tribunal found no nexus between the excess stock of diamonds and Devabhai M. Patel in his individual capacity, concluding that the excess stock related to the dealer. Therefore, the Tribunal's order was based on substantial evidence and not on any mistaken concession by the counsel.

Issue 3: Applications for Rectification u/s 55

The dealer filed separate applications for rectification of mistake u/s 55 of the Act and for review of the earlier order. The Tribunal dismissed the rectification petitions as not maintainable, and this order became final as the dealer did not challenge it. The court noted that the order dated 1st November, 1976, was based on substantial evidence and not on any apparent error. Therefore, section 55 of the Act was not applicable. The court rejected the contention that the review applications could be treated as applications for rectification of mistake u/s 55.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the Tribunal's order dated 16th August, 1978, allowing the review applications and the subsequent order dated 30th November, 1978, disposing of Appeals Nos. 1331 and 1332 of 1978. Both the tax revision cases and the writ petitions were allowed without costs.