1963 (10) TMI 25 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the common order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejecting applications to review an earlier order by that court, is correct on the facts? Held that - The reasoning, therefore, of the learned Judges in the order now under appeal, is no ground for rejecting the applications to review their orders of September, 1959. We therefore consider that the learned Judges were in error in rejecting the application for review and we hold that the petitions for review should have been allowed. In the result the appeal is allowed and the common judgment of the High Court in the three appeals is reversed and the petitions for review--C.M.Ps 4672, 4673 and 4674 of 1959 on the file of the High Court are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether hydrogenated groundnut oil is considered groundnut oil under Rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules.
2. Whether the High Court's order dated September 4, 1959, rejecting the certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court, was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.
3. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review applications filed by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether hydrogenated groundnut oil is considered groundnut oil under Rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules:
The appellant, a manufacturer of groundnut oil, claimed a deduction under Rule 18(2) for the value of groundnuts used to produce hydrogenated oil. The Sales Tax authorities and the High Court initially denied this claim, holding that hydrogenated groundnut oil was not "groundnut oil" within the meaning of Rule 18(2). This decision was upheld by the High Court in T.R.C. 120 of 1953 and was pending appeal in the Supreme Court. The appellant's subsequent assessments for the years 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53 were similarly denied based on the same interpretation.

2. Whether the High Court's order dated September 4, 1959, rejecting the certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court, was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record:
The High Court denied the appellant's request for a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) on the grounds that the judgment was one of affirmance and did not involve any substantial question of law. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, noting that the High Court's earlier decision in T.R.C. 120 of 1953 had acknowledged substantial questions of law. The Supreme Court emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise but is meant to correct patent errors. The Court held that the High Court's statement that no substantial question of law arose was an "error apparent on the face of the record," given the identical legal issues in both cases.

3. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review applications filed by the appellant:
The High Court dismissed the review applications, reasoning that the previous grant of a certificate for an earlier year did not necessitate a similar decision for subsequent years. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court failed to appreciate that the same substantial questions of law were involved. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's refusal to grant the certificate was based on a misinterpretation of the facts and the law, and thus, the review applications should have been allowed. The Supreme Court also clarified that the refusal of special leave by the Supreme Court due to a delay in filing did not bar the High Court from entertaining the review applications.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court's judgment, and granted the review petitions. The Court emphasized that the High Court's decision was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, and the appellant was entitled to a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also rejected the respondent's plea against awarding costs to the appellant.