1991 (9) TMI 311 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision against the order made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Review application under section 36(6) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Power of review and statutory limitations.
4. Non-production of records and due diligence.
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in reviewing the order.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed a revision against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, which reviewed its earlier decision. The Tribunal had found that the assessee did not maintain proper accounts and had suppressed turnover, leading to the imposition of penalty. The Tribunal later partially accepted a review application, setting aside the penalty but upholding the turnover addition. The High Court noted that the power of review is statutory and limited by specific conditions under the Act.

2. Section 36(6) of the Act allows for a review based on the discovery of new and important facts not within the party's knowledge at the time of the original order. The application for review must be made within one year of the order and accompanied by the prescribed fee. In this case, the Tribunal accepted the review application partially, but the High Court found that the new facts presented were not sufficient to warrant a review as they were within the assessee's possession earlier.

3. The High Court emphasized that the power of review is not an inherent one and must adhere to the statutory provisions. It highlighted that new facts must be discovered after due diligence and not readily available to the party seeking a review. The Court found that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by treating the review application as an appeal and deleting the penalty based on material not produced earlier.

4. The Court criticized the assessee for not producing all relevant records earlier and attempting to introduce new evidence at a later stage. It noted that the Tribunal should have assessed whether the non-production of records earlier was due to a valid reason after due diligence. The Court highlighted that a review application cannot be used as a means to re-litigate a case or introduce new evidence that was available earlier.

5. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Tribunal's review order and restoring the original decision. It concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to justify a review and that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction in deleting the penalty. The Court emphasized that a review application should not be a disguised appeal and upheld the original order of the Tribunal.