1991 (2) TMI 358 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether fried grams fall under the category of declared goods for the purpose of levy of additional sales tax.
2. Scope of the power of review under section 36(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:

1. The respondent, a dealer in grams, contended that fried grams should be considered declared goods and excluded from the total turnover for additional sales tax. However, the assessing authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that fried grams were not declared goods and should be included in the total turnover. Subsequently, the respondent filed a review petition under section 36(6)(a) of the Act, citing a High Court judgment supporting their claim that fried grams were declared goods under item 6(a) of the Second Schedule. The Tribunal reviewed its earlier decision and agreed with the respondent. The Revenue challenged this decision in revision.

2. The main issue raised in the revision petition was the scope of the power of review under section 36(6)(a) of the Act. The Additional Government Pleader argued that the power of review cannot be used solely based on a subsequent High Court judgment contradicting the Tribunal's view. Citing the judgment in Gollapudi Suryanarayana Chetty v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 45 STC 227 (Mad.), it was contended that a review can only be sought if new and important facts, not known earlier, are discovered. The Division Bench in the mentioned case held that a High Court decision cannot be considered a new and important fact for review purposes.

3. The Court, in line with the principles established in Gollapudi Suryanarayana Chetty, emphasized that the power of review under section 36(6)(a) is limited to cases where new and significant facts, previously unknown, are discovered. Relying on the statutory provisions, the Court clarified that review grounds are restricted and cannot be extended beyond what the Legislature has specified. Review petitions should not be used as disguised appeals and must adhere strictly to the statutory limitations. In this case, the Tribunal erred in reviewing its earlier decision solely based on a subsequent High Court judgment, without any new facts coming to light. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the original order was restored in favor of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the revision petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations when exercising the power of review under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.