9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 1st November, 1975. The assessee claimed exemption as second sales contending that the purchases were made locally. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeals against the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 examined this claim of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the persons from whom the assessee alleged that it had effected purchases we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Revision petitions (T.C. Nos. 494 to 496 of 1975) were filed before this Court against the said order, and they were dismissed on 29th October, 1975. The assessee has filed petitions for review of the earlier order dated 19th August, 1975. Section 36(6) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act provides that the appellant or the respondent may apply for review of any order passed by the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicant or could not be produced by him when the order was made. It is this order which is challenged in the present revision petitions. With reference to the fresh facts, there is only one affidavit sworn to by a person named V.A. Manickam. The Tribunal pointed out that the assessee could not even show a solitary instance of payment of brokerage to V.A. Manickam with reference to the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be produced by him when the order was made" showed that it is a cumulative condition, and not an alternative condition. In other words, the point that has been taken is that the discovery of new and important facts must be after the exercise of due diligence, and that the facts must not have been within the knowledge of the applicant. Further, according to the assessee, the non-production need no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be produced after the exercise of due diligence. The requirement of exercise of due diligence applies to both the limits, viz., knowledge and inability to produce. The result is that the construction sought to be placed by the applicant on section 36(6) is not correct. The result is, the revision petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250 (one set). Petitions dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
