The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 41 and interpreted the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act to determine the liability to pay sales tax on the transactions.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated May 15, 2000, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (for short, "the Tribunal") under Section 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the State Act") vide which the Tribunal reviewed its order dated August 16, 1999 and restored the order of assessment passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Sirsa (hereafter described as "the Assessing Authority").

2. The facts which have bearing on the decision of this petition are that after hearing the representative of the petitioner, the Assessing Authority passed order dated August 3, 1998 (annexure P1) in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 holding the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on the paddy purchased from within the State of Haryana, notwithstanding the fact that the rice manufactured out of it had been indirectly exported out of India. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, but the second appeal filed by it was allowed by the Tribunal vide order, annexure P4, dated August 16, 1999. The department sought review of that order by filing an application under Section 41 of the State Act which has been granted by the impugned order.

3. Shri K.L. Goyal argued that the impugned order should be declared void and quashed because the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 41 of the State Act. Learned counsel argued that while deciding an application filed by the State under Section 41 of the State Act, the Tribunal could not have acted as a court of appeal. He read out the two orders passed by the Tribunal to show that the review petition has been entertained by the succeeding member of the Tribunal without even recording a finding that the order dated August 16, 1999 suffers from any legal infirmity. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions :

(1) Chandra Kanta v. Sheik Habib AIR 1975 SC 1500. (2) Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1980] 45 STC 212 (SC) ; AIR 1980 SC 674. (3) F.G. Davidson v. Mohanlal Sindhi AIR 1964 All. 342.

4. He further argued that the levy of tax on the paddy purchased by the petitioner from within the State of Haryana is illegal because after milling the paddy, the rice was sold to the direct exporter and in view of Section 5(3) read with Section 15(ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the "Central Act"), no tax can be levied on such transaction under the State Act.

5. Section 41(1) of the State Act, which provides for review of an order made under the said Act, reads as under :

41(1). An Assessing Authority or any person considering himself aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal or any officer above the rank of an Excise and Taxation Officer under this Act and who, from the discovery of any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when such order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review of the order made against the State or him, may apply for a review of such order to the Tribunal or such officer, as the case may be."

6. An analysis of the above quoted provision shows that the review of an order passed by the Tribunal or any officer above the rank of the Excise and Taxation Officer can be sought in one of the following eventualities :

(i) discovery of new matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner or which could not be produced by him at the time of passing of the order under review despite the exercise of due diligence ;

(ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record ; or

(iii) any