9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1948, was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal solely on the ground that subsequent judgment of the constitutional courts after the decision of the Tribunal was not a mistake apparent from the record requiring passing of a fresh order. The Tribunal was persuaded to take such a view on the basis of the judgments in [1984] 56 STC 82 (Mad.) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Meenambal and Co.) and [1987] 67 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of subsequent judgment to the contrary. The facts of the case were that the High Court had earlier ordered refund of licence fee collected under the relevant Act. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the vires of the Act challenged before the High Court and the State on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment filed a petition before the High Court seeking review of its earlier judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the application for review........" To the same effect is another judgment of the apex Court in Vijaya Wines v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1978] 42 STC 329 (sic). A Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 6751 of 1993 decided on February 16, 1995* Hero Cycles Limited v. State of Punjab held: "......we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should have taken note of the abovesaid judgment whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petition is, therefore, held to be against the provisions of law and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order impugned and remanding the case back to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with a direction to pass afresh appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of law and the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to and relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
