1993 (8) TMI 274 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of review applications under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of the provision for review based on discovery of new and important facts.
3. Application of the provision to the specific case of X-ray films under entry 151 of the First Schedule.
4. Comparison with relevant case law from the Madras High Court.
5. Argument for review based on ignorance of a material provision of law affecting the order.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case is the maintainability of review applications under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The revision petitions were filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, challenging the assessments for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The Tribunal had disposed of the appeals by a common judgment, prompting the assessee to file review applications. The Departmental Member held the review applications to be not maintainable, leading to a disagreement among the Tribunal members. The matter was referred to a third Member to resolve the issue.

2. The interpretation of the provision for review, based on the discovery of new and important facts, was crucial in this case. Sub-section (7) of section 39 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act allows for review based on the discovery of such facts not known or producible during the original order. The Departmental Member and the Member (Accounts) concurred that there was no discovery of new and important facts justifying a review, while the Chairman held a different view without providing reasons.

3. A specific application of the provision was made concerning X-ray films falling under entry 151 of the First Schedule. The petitioner argued that X-ray films should be considered under the entry "photographic films." However, the Departmental Member and the Member (Accounts) disagreed, stating that this argument did not constitute a new and important fact justifying a review.

4. The Tribunal's decision was compared with relevant case law from the Madras High Court, emphasizing the requirement for a genuine discovery of new and important facts after due diligence. The Madras High Court's interpretation of the provision highlighted the necessity for facts not within the knowledge of the applicant and unproducible during the original order.

5. An argument was presented based on ignorance of a material provision of law affecting the order, citing a decision from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the Tribunal, supported by the Madras High Court's precedent, concluded that there was no genuine discovery of new and important facts warranting a review. The petitions were ultimately dismissed based on the lack of grounds for review and the absence of an error of law necessitating correction.