The term "facts" in Section 12-A (6) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act includes not only new pleas or defenses but also fresh evidentiary matter in support of a plea or defense already advanced before the Tribunal at the original hearing but not substantiated by evidence at that stage.

( 1 ) THE question in this case turns upon the interpretation of Section 12-A (6) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. A Division Bench of this court held in Chandaji Kubaji and Co. v. State of Andhra that, under that (1) 1956 A. L. T, 446 = 69 L. W. ( Andhra) 43. section a review could be ordered only if new facts not placed before the Tribunal on the previous occasion were brought to their notice subsequently but it. would not apply to a case where new evidence was sought to be adduced to support basic facts already placed before the Tribunal. As the question now raised is important from the stand-point of assessees under the Act in this State, we think in the interest of finality, an authoritative decision on the interpretation of the section should be given by a Full Bench of this Court. We therefore, refer the following question to the Full Bench. "what is the correct interpretation of the provisions of section 12a (6) (a) of the madras General Sales Tax Act?"opinion opinion of the Full Bench was delivered by Viswanatha Sastry J. A petition for review of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed by a majority and a sum of Rs. 65,623-13-0 was deleted from the turnover for the year 1948-1949- According to the assessee, though an objection with regard to the liability of the sum of Rs. 65,623-13-0 to be assessed to tax had been raised before the Tribunal at the original hearing and the facts and materials relevant to a consideration of the objection had been placed before it, the Tribunal omitted to consider the objection and give its decision thereon. The assessee thereupon applied to the Tribunal under Section 12-A (6) of the Madras general Sales Tax Act for a review of iis previous order and for deletion of the sum of Rs. 65,625-13-0 from the turnover. Objection was taken on behalf of the State that as no fresh pleas or facts were brought before the Tribunal the order and findings of the Tribunal on the materials on record could not be canvassed afresh on a review application. The chairman of the Tribunal was for dismissing the application for review because "no new facts, nay, no new contentions" were urged justifying interference. The first member recorded the following opinion:"it is a fact that in the appeal before the Tribunal objection was taken to the inclusion of Rs. 83,649-13-0 (of which Rs. 65,623-13-0 was a part) but by oversight no orders were passed. This is a mistake appatent from the record brought to the notice of the Tribunal by means of this application. Under Rule 18 (l) of the Madras General Rules, this mistake has to be rectified. " He directed the deletion of the sum of Rs. 65,623-13-0 from the turnover. The second member stated that on account of the confused state of the accounts, vouchers and other papers, the Tribunal experienced considerable difficulty in arriving at a proper decision and expressed his conclusion as follows: "this tribunal would be justified by the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in revising the order if it is shown that thete had been an apparent error on the face of the record, as the ultimate object of the constitution of the Tribunal is to ensure justice to all concerned. "

( 2 ) HE also allowed the application for review so far as it related to the sum of rs. 65,623-13-0 was concerned. In the result, the view of the majority prevailed and the sum of Rs. 65,623-13-0 was deleted from the turnover. The State of Andhra preferred a revision petition to the High Court against the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that, in the absence of a finding that any new pleas or new facts were brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the application for review was not maintainable and that the mandatory provisions of Section 12-A (6) require that a review could be allowed only on the basis of facts which were not before the Tribunal at the time of the original order.

( 3 ) THE objection was also raised that apart from Section 12-A (6) the Tribunal had no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document