9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (4) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the plea that they were written in Gujarati and nobody was available to instruct counsel in English or Telugu and in the other, on an equally specious plea that the correspondence was mixed up with other records for about two years. These two appeals can be disposed of on this short ground that the appellant was not entitled to ask for review under section 12-A(6)(a) by reason of his own deliberate negligence and intentional withholding of evidence. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commission agency business to the tune of Rs. 10,45,156-4-9 the appellants have neither advanced arguments nor placed before us any materials in support of the contention raised in this behalf". In the result the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 30, 1953. In Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1958 the appellant was assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, on a net turnover of Rs. 28,72,083 and odd for the year 1949-50. The appellant objected to the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 19,89,076 and odd on the ground that the goods relating thereto had been consigned to self and despatched to places outside the State and in fact were delivered outside the State. This plea was disallowed by the Sales Tax Authorities, and the Tribunal said: " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid orders the appellant filed applications for review under section 12-A(6)(a) of the Act. That section, in so far as it is relevant for these appeals, reads: "12-A(6)(a)-The Appellate Tribunal may, on the application either of the assessee or of the Deputy Commissioner, review any order passed by it under sub-section (4) on the basis of facts which were not before it when it passed the order: Provided that no such application shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order". The point taken on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1957 was that the accounts were in Gujarati language and as there was none on behalf of the appellant who could give instructions to the appellant's advocate either in Telugu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the High Court took of section 12-A(6)(a), it held that the applications for review were rightly rejected. In the two appeals before us the argument has been that the Tribunal as also the High Court took an erroneous view of the true scope and effect of section 12-A(6)(a) of the Act. Our attention has been drawn to a subsequent Full Bench decision of the same High Court in The State of Andhra v. Sri Arisetty Sriramulu [1957] 8 S.T.C. 153; A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 130., and it has been submitted that the view expressed therein is the correct view. In that decision, it was held that the word "facts" in section 12-A(6)(a) may be taken to have been used in the sense in which it is used in law of evidence, that is to say, as including the factum pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y or deliberately withheld or suppressed, the party guilty of such suppression or with- holding would still be entitled to ask for a review under section 12-A (6)(a). We say this with great respect, but this is precisely what the section does not permit. The Full Bench said: "The language of section 12-A(6)(a) is so wide and general that it might possibly lead to inconvenient results in that it might enable an assessee to get a further chance of hearing before the Appellate Tribunal on the strength of evidence which he negligently or designedly failed to produce at the first hearing. As the language used in section 12-A(6)(a) is clear and unequivocal and, in our opinion, capable only of one interpretation, we are bound to give effect to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
