LexM/S. CHANDAJI KUBAJI & CO. versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960) r96o We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the Shrimant Dattajirao judgment and decree of the High Court dated N ovem- Buhirojirao ber 12 1952 and restore that of the learned Civil Gho~~ade Judge' dated' April 20, 1949. The appellant will be Shrimant Vijaya- entitled to his_ costs throughout from the plaiutiff- sinhrao - S. K, Das j. April 29. respondent. Appeal allowed. M/S. CHANDAJI KUBAJI & CO. v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. (S. K. DAS, J. L. K~PUR and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) R_eview-Grounds for-Whether allowable on party's own deli- berate · negligence and intentional withholding of evidence-The Madras General Sales Tax Act, I939 (Mad. Act IX of Ig39), s. I2A (6) (a). The appellant company was a dealer in ghee and ground- nut oil et~. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed it to sales tax for the year 1948-49 on a turnover of Rs. 28,69,151 and odd. Similarly for the year 1949-50 the appellant was assessed to sales ·tax on a turnover of Rs. 28,72,083 and odd. The appellant challenged these assessments and its appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer having failed the two matters came up in second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the Tribunal the appellant did not place any materials in support of its contentions and the two appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal holding that the appellant was correctly assessed to sales tax. In respect of the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal the appellant filed applications for review under s. l2A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Mad. Act IX of 1939), taking the plea that in the first case the materials could not be placed before the Tribunal as there was none to instruct the appellant's advocate in English or Telegu, and in the second case the rele- vant correspondence was mixed up with other records. The Tri- bunal rejected the applications for review on the ground that a failure to produce the necessary materials in support of a plea taken before it, due either to gross negligence or deliberate with- holding, did not come within the reason of s. 12A(6)(a) of the Act. The High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal. On appeal by specialleave in one case and a certificate of the High Court in the other : Held, that the provision ins. l2A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Mad. Act IX of 1939), permits a review when through some oversight, mistake or error the necessary facts, basic or evidentiary, were not present before the Court when it passed the order sought to be reviewed, but a party was not r 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 805 entitled to ask for a review when it had deliberately or intentionally withheld evidence in support of a claim made by it. State of Andhra v. Sri Arisetty Sriramulu, A.LR. r957 Andhra Pradesh r30, not approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 420of1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 8, 1955, of the former Andhra High Court in Tax Revision Case No. 2 of 1955. WITH Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1958. Appeal from the' judgment and order dated July 28, 1955, of the former Andhra High Court in T.R.C. No. 32 of 1954. N. Rajeswara Rao and Sarrlar Bahailur, for the appellants (in both the appeals). T. V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen, for the respon- dent (in both the appeallil). ll960. April 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Chandaji Kubaji 0- Co. v; State of A ndhra Pradesh R K. DAS, J.-These two appeals, one with special s. K. Das J. leave from this Court and the other on a certificate grnnted by the High Court of Andhra, have been heard together and this judgment will govern them bo•jh, 'rhe faets are similar and the short question for decision is whether the appellant, Messrs. Chandaji Knbaji and Company, Guntur, was entitled to apply under s. 12A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of 1939), as applied to. Andhra, for a review of an order of the Appellate Tribunal made under sub-s. (4) of s. 12A of the said Act. The relevant facts are these. The appellant is a dealer in ghee, groundnut oil, chillies, etc., and was ·carrying on its business at Guntur. In Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1957, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, a.ssessed the appellant to sales tax for the yea,r 1948 .. 49 on a turnover of Rs. 28,69,151 and odd. Tbe appellant having unsuccessfully appealed to the Commerci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.