TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes limited scope for review under section 12-A(6) of tax law</h1> <h3>Chandaji Kubaji and Company Versus. The State of Andhra</h3> Chandaji Kubaji and Company Versus. The State of Andhra - [1956] 7 STC 332 (AP) Issues:1. Review of order under section 12-A(6) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.2. Interpretation of the term 'facts' in section 12-A(6)(a).3. Comparison of section 12-A(6)(a) with Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.4. Distinction between facts and evidence in the context of seeking a review.5. Application of the interpretation of 'facts' in previous Tax Revision Cases.Analysis:The case involved a revision against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing an application under section 12-A(6) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act for reviewing the order passed in a specific case. The petitioners contended that they were unable to present necessary evidence before the Tribunal due to language barriers, leading to the rejection of their claim related to a commission purchase of taxable commodities. The Tribunal's dismissal was based on the principle that parties should be prepared with all facts and materials during the hearing, and reopening decisions due to evidence not timely presented is not permissible under section 12-A(6).The main contention before the court was the interpretation of the term 'facts' in section 12-A(6)(a) of the Act. The counsel for the assessees argued that the term should include evidence supporting the facts, allowing for a review based on evidence not previously presented. The court examined the wide connotation of the term 'facts' and emphasized that the legislature did not intend to allow reviews based on new evidence alone, as seen in the comparison with Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court highlighted the strict construction of section 12-A(6) and the limitation to reviews solely on the basis of new facts not before the Tribunal during the original order.Further, the court clarified the distinction between facts and evidence, stating that facts refer to basic elements supporting a claim, while evidence is used to establish those facts. It was emphasized that section 12-A(6) does not provide for a second chance to present evidence that was negligently or intentionally omitted during the original hearing. The court referenced previous Tax Revision Cases to illustrate the application of this interpretation, emphasizing that the provision aims to assist parties who were unable to present crucial facts initially, not to allow for the introduction of new evidence in subsequent reviews.In the specific case at hand, where the petitioners sought a review due to language barriers preventing the presentation of evidence, the court concluded that evidence to substantiate a claim does not constitute a new fact under section 12-A(6). As a result, the review petition was rightfully dismissed, leading to the rejection of the revision application with costs.In summary, the judgment delved into the nuances of seeking a review under section 12-A(6) of the Act, interpreting the term 'facts,' distinguishing between facts and evidence, and providing a stringent yet reasonable approach to the review process based on new facts not previously presented before the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 