Skip to content


M. Haji Mohamed Ismail Sahib and Co. Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by Dy. Commr., Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberT.C.M.P. No. 66 of 1966 (Review) in T.C. 209 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Mad378; [1970]26STC73(Mad)
ActsMadras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 - Sections 12B(7)
AppellantM. Haji Mohamed Ismail Sahib and Co.
RespondentThe State of Madras, Represented by Dy. Commr., Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore
Appellant AdvocateM.R.M. Abdul Karim, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdv. General, ;First Govt. Pleader and ;J. Jayaraman, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredFirm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid and Co. v. State of Madras
Excerpt:
.....review petition. no, 209 of 1963 was disposed of that will be within section 12-b(7)(a) of the madras general sales tax act, 1939. that clause says that this court might, on the appli-cation either of the assessee or of the deputy commissioner, review any order passed by it under sub-section (4) 'on the basis of facts which were not before it when it passed the order'.though prima facie those words may bring in a case like the one under consideration, we are inclined to think that the power being one of review, the general principles applicable to that power, which are so well settled by now, should be borne in mind in assessing the scope and effect of section 12-b (7) (a). obviously, review is not intended to correct the laches or omission or negligence of the parties in not placing..........the court when t. c. no, 209 of 1963 was disposed of that will be within section 12-b(7)(a) of the madras general sales tax act, 1939. that clause says that this court might, on the appli-cation either of the assessee or of the deputy commissioner, review any order passed by it under sub-section (4) 'on the basis of facts which were not before it when it passed the order'. though prima facie those words may bring in a case like the one under consideration, we are inclined to think that the power being one of review, the general principles applicable to that power, which are so well settled by now, should be borne in mind in assessing the scope and effect of section 12-b (7) (a). obviously, review is not intended to correct the laches or omission or negligence of the parties in not.....
Judgment:

K. Veeraswami, C.J.

1. We are not satisfied that there is any substance in this review petition. It is said that Firm A. T. B. Mehtab Majid and Co. v. State of Madras, : AIR1963SC928 was a fact and that having not been placed before the Court when T. C. No, 209 of 1963 was disposed of that will be within Section 12-B(7)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. That clause says that this court might, on the appli-cation either of the assessee or of the Deputy Commissioner, review any order passed by it under Sub-section (4) 'on the basis of facts which were not before it when it passed the order'. Though prima facie those words may bring in a case like the one under consideration, we are inclined to think that the power being one of review, the general principles applicable to that power, which are so well settled by now, should be borne in mind in assessing the scope and effect of Section 12-B (7) (a). Obviously, review is not intended to correct the laches or omission or negligence of the parties in not placing the relevant decisions before court. On that view, the petition is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //