Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1960 (4) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anted by the High Court of Andhra, have been heard together and this judgment will govern them both.   The facts are similar and the short question for decision is whether the appellant, Messrs Chandaji Kubaji and Company, Guntur, was entitled to apply under section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939) as applied to Andhra, for a review of an order of the Appellate Tribunal made under sub-section (4) of section 12-A of the said Act. The relevant facts are these. The appellant is a dealer in ghee, groundnut oil, chillies, etc., and was carrying on its business at Guntur. In Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1957, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, assessed the appellant to sales tax for the year 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant till the sale price was collected and the goods were delivered to the buyers at places outside the State. Beyond advancing a broad argument of this type no material has been placed before us or was placed before the assessing authority or the Commercial Tax Officer to support the appellant's version that the property in the goods passed to the buyer only at places outside the State."   .............................................................................................   "It is not denied that though contracts in writing were not entered into, these transactions were the result of correspondence between the appellant on the one hand as seller and various persons on the other as buyers. It is conceded that su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s before the Tribunal. In the other appeal, the point taken in support of the application for review was that the relevant correspondence was mixed up with other records and so it could not be placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the applications for review on the ground that a failure to produce the necessary materials in support of a plea taken before it, due either to gross negligence or deliberate with- holding, did not come within the reason of section 12-A(6)(a) as stated in the expression "on the basis of facts which were not before it when it passed the order". The appellant then moved the High Court in revision under section 12-B of the Act and contended that the view which the Tribunal took of section 12-A(6)(a) was n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the evidentiary facts from which the principal fact follows immediately or by inference; facts may be either 'facts in issue' which are the principal matters in dispute or relevant facts which are evidentiary and which directly or by inference, prove or disprove the 'facts in issue'."   In the view which we have taken of these two appeals, it is not necessary to discuss at great length the divergent views taken in the High Court of Andhra as to the true scope and effect of section 12-A (6)(a) of the Act. A Division Bench expressed the view that "facts" in the sub-section meant basic facts, that is, facts necessary to sustain a claim, and drew a distinction between such facts and the evidence required to establish them; it further ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ulting therefrom. The inconvenience, if any, is not to the assessee for whose benefit the provision is intended. In any case, the remedy is with the Legislature."   It is, we think, doing great violence to language to say that an intentional or deliberate withholding or suppression of evidence in support of a plea or contention or a basic fact urged before the Tribunal, is comprehended within the expression "facts which were not before it (Tribunal) when it passed the order". To so construe the section is to put a premium on deliberate negligence and fraud and amounts to allowing a party to profit from its own wrong. We do not think that such a construction follows from the language used, which is more consistent with the view that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates