Broad review powers under sales tax law extend to fresh evidence, while omitted findings are corrected as apparent mistakes.

Section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was construed broadly to permit review on the basis of facts not before the Appellate Tribunal earlier, including fresh evidentiary material supporting a plea of non-liability that had already been raised or is raised for the first time at review. The phrase was held not to be confined to wholly new basic facts, and the provision was not read down by importing the narrower limits of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Where all material was already before the Tribunal but it omitted to decide an argued issue, the defect was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, remediable by rectification or remand, not review.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act permits the Appellate Tribunal to review its order only when entirely new basic facts were not before it at the original hearing, or whether the provision also covers fresh evidentiary material supporting a plea already raised, and whether an omission to decide an issue already argued can be corrected under the review or rectification powers.

Analysis: The expression "on the basis of facts which were not before it" was construed in a broad sense. The Court held that "facts" is not confined to newly discovered basic facts or new pleas alone, but extends to evidentiary facts relevant to establish a plea of non-liability, whether the plea was previously advanced but not substantiated or is sought to be advanced for the first time at the review stage. The statutory language was treated as clear and unqualified, and therefore not to be narrowed by importing limitations found in Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The Court further observed that where all materials were already before the Tribunal but it omitted by mistake to record a finding on an issue, the omission would not fall within section 12-A(6)(a); such a defect could be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record under the rectification rule or by remand in revision for a finding on the omitted issue.

Conclusion: Section 12-A(6)(a) was held to allow review on the basis of fresh evidentiary facts not before the Tribunal earlier, and not to be limited to wholly new basic facts alone; the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal was upheld and the revision failed.

---