1962 (2) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd Sales Tax. North Zone, Kozhikode, seeks by this petition to review the judgment passed by this Court in T.R.C. No. 92 of 1959 on 1st November. 1960*. The only question that was in controversy in the case was whether rule 17 (3-A) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules was valid or not. The contention raised by the assessee-petitioner was that the said rule was invalid for want of previous public .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on as contemplated by section 19(4) the rule was invalid. Subsequent to that decision the State has filed this application for review of the said judgment under section 12-B(7) of the Sales Tax Act. The time prescribed for review by rule 13-C(2)(b) is one year and this application has been filed well within that time. The ground on which the application is brought is that facts, which were not b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the State Representative; and therefore it has to be construed that no new facts, which were not before the Court when the Court passed the order are now brought to its notice. Thus, according to him, the petition has to be dismissed. We do not agree. The concession made by the State Representative that the rule was not previously published was on a mistake of fact and therefore the real fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X