9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (4) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t March, 1957, he had not collected any additional tax from his purchasers and that he would be entitled to relief from such additional tax under the Government Memorandum No. 98975-M/57 dated 7th January, 1958. The Appellate Authority was not convinced that the petitioner did not collect the tax from his constituents. He took the view that the petitioner had collected the additional tax in a disguised manner including it as part of the price of the cloth sold. The Commercial Tax Officer, therefore, refused to grant relief to the petitioner in terms of the Government Order. The petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. Most of the questions which he raised before the Tribunal had been raised by ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal memorandum under a bona fide mistake thinking that all the grounds that could be urged in the appeal were really covered by the decision of the High Court in Nannuswami v. State of Madras [1960] 11 S.T.C. 726., and that he overlooked the point raised, for relief in terms of the Government Memorandum. This was alleged to be an error of law apparent on the face of the record which would justify the order of dismissal being set aside and the appeal heard afresh. The Tribunal dismissed this review application holding that there were no grounds for review either under section 36(6)(a) of the Act, or under the so-called inherent power of the Tribunal. It is this order which is now challenged before us in this revision petition. It is obvio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the face of the record. . . . ." We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the substance of the application was to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record the Tribunal should have exercised its power under this provision without in any way penalizing the petitioner for quoting a wrong provision of law, or for not stating the correct provision. But, we must observe that the Tribunal has really considered the question whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record to justify a rectification, as it is called, under section 55 of the Act. In its view there was no such error. The question is whether that view is correct. The power to correct or rectify errors apparent on the face of the record i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. " The evident nature of an error might be a matter which could be made clear by arguments, but it cannot be made to depend upon extraneous factors or circumstances. In other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority for holding that an error, mistake or misapprehension of a counsel in the case would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. In fact, that decision turned upon the proper interpretation of the words " any other sufficient reason " occurring in Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. Patanjali Sastri, J., has quite categorically stated at page 811 that the misapprehension of counsel is not a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Judge observed: " There was of course no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in this case. If there were, that would obviously be a sufficient ground by itself for a review. But the misapprehension owing to which the learned counsel for the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... add words to the section and we must, therefore, hold that the one and only ground on which rectification can be made would be an error of the kind mentioned in the section. It was next contended that there was something in the nature of an inherent power in the Tribunal to grant relief to the petitioner. Reference is made to the decision of this Court in S. V. R. Natarajan Chettiar and Others v. State of Madras I.L.R. 1960 Mad. 449 The following observation from that case is relied upon: " As we have already stressed, there can be no doubt that an inherent power to review should be presumed in all such cases, as it cannot be just and expedient that such Tribunals rendering judicial decisions should be unable to rectify an error apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
