9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2,09,949 and a penalty of Rs. 2,24,316. Against the said order the dealer preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Virudhunagar. The appellate authority set aside the order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. Against the orders of remand passed by the appellate authority, the dealer preferred appeals before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madurai. The Appellate Tribunal, Madurai, by its order dated 1st November, 1976, redetermined the total and taxable turnover for the year 1972-73 at Rs. 13,95,525.10. The tax payable was fixed at Rs. 1,25,506. The Tribunal also levied a penalty of Rs. 75,000. For the assessment year 1973-74, the total and taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 13,40,380 and the tax payable at Rs. 1,20,525. The Tribunal also levied a penalty of Rs. 70,000. Thereafter the dealer preferred two applications, T.R.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1978, to review the order of the Tribunal passed on 1st November, 1976, and T.M.P. Nos. 140 and 141 of 1978 for rectification of the said order for the two years in question. These petitions were transferred to and disposed of by the Sales Tax Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether this Court had jurisdiction to review an order passed in a civil revision petition which arose under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The learned judge observed as follows: "Inasmuch as the Act contains no explicit provision for review the petitioner has supported his claim to one with reference to (a) the inherent powers of court and (c) the Code of Civil Procedure. So far as the invocation of the inherent powers of court is concerned, it has been held repeatedly and has now become well-settled law that the power to review is not an inherent power of a judicial officer but such a right must be conferred by statute. This is based upon the common sense principle that prima facie a party who has obtained a decision is entitled to keep it unassailed unless the legislature has indicated the mode by which it can be set aside. A review is practically the hearing of an appeal by the same officer who decided the case. Therefore, the course of decisions in this country has been to the effect that a right to review is not an inherent power: See David Nadar v. Manicka Vachaka Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannathi (1910) ILR 33 Mad 65, Lala Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power by way of review under the particular statute. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that the petitioner cannot obtain any relief once it is found that neither section 36(6)(a) nor section 55 would be applicable." In P.N. Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji AIR 1970 SC 1273 the Supreme Court had to consider whether the Commissioner had inherent power to review an earlier order passed under the provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act (25 of 1951). In that context, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The first question that we have to consider is whether Mr. Mankodi had competence to quash the order made by the Saurashtra Government on 22nd October, 1956. It must be remembered that Mr. Mankodi was functioning as the delegate of the State Government. The order passed by Mr. Mankodi, in law amounted to a review of the order made by Saurashtra Government. It is well-settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supposed inherent power available with it. Mr. Venkataraman then submitted that this Court might treat T.R.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1978 as applications filed by the dealer for rectification of mistake under section 55 of the Act. Section 55 of the Act reads as follows: "An assessing authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the Appellate Tribunal) may, at any time within three years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any error apparent on the face of the record: Provided that no such rectification which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or any penalty shall be made unless such authority has given notice to the dealer and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." On the facts of the present case, it is not possible to assume that the dealer had quoted a wrong provision of law or did not state the correct provision of law in the applications filed by him for review of the earlier order dated 1st November, 1976. On the other hand, the dealer filed two sets of applications, one set of applications for rectifying an error apparent on the face of the record under section 55 of the Act and another set of applications for revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the point that the diamonds in question related only to the other partner, Devabhai M. Patel, and not to the business of the appellants." The Tribunal also stated: "On the whole, we find, that there is no nexus between the excess stock of diamonds and Thiru Devabhai M. Patel in his individual capacity. The appellants are not able to prove on the basis of any records that the alleged diamonds in question were received either for valuation or for purpose of sale to customers in and around Karaikudi. There is nothing in the statement of Thiru Thakorebhai, managing partner, deposed at the time of inspection that the slips and pocket note book related to the partner, Thiru Devabhai M. Patel, in his individual capacity and not to the partnership business." In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order dated 1st November, 1976, was passed by the Tribunal on any assumption that the counsel for the dealer had conceded that the dealer was liable. On the other hand, a perusal of order dated 1st November, 1976, particularly the passages extracted above, would clearly show that the Tribunal's order was based on the statement made by Devabhai M. Patel and Thakorebhai and on the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
