Statutory review is confined to limited grounds; withheld objections and late filing cannot reopen the earlier order.
Statutory review jurisdiction was held to be narrow and could not be used to raise a ground that was available earlier but deliberately not taken. The plea that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was improperly constituted failed because the statutory scheme permitted a two-member Bench, the judicial act carried a presumption of regularity, and no patent defect was shown on the record. The review also failed on limitation because it was filed more than one year after pronouncement, which was treated as communication to the parties through counsel, so the prescribed period ran from that date.
Issues: (i) Whether review was maintainable on the ground that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was allegedly not properly constituted; (ii) whether the review petition was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether review was maintainable on the ground that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was allegedly not properly constituted.
Analysis: Review under the Act is confined to the statutory limits. The plea regarding the Tribunal's constitution was treated as a fresh factual ground that had been available earlier but was not raised. There is a presumption that judicial acts are regularly performed, and mere proof that two members heard the appeal did not displace that presumption. The statutory scheme specifically permitted a Bench of two members, and the material did not show any patent defect on the face of the record. A ground deliberately withheld, or withheld through intentional negligence, could not be used to reopen the order in review.
Conclusion: The review was not maintainable on this ground and the contention failed, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the review petition was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The application was filed more than one year after pronouncement of the order sought to be reviewed. Pronouncement in open court was treated as communication to the parties through counsel, and the period prescribed by the relevant rule ran from that date. The later attempt to rely on re-presentation did not displace the bar of time on the record considered by the Court.
Conclusion: The review petition was time-barred, against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The statutory review jurisdiction could not be invoked to reopen the earlier order on the grounds urged, and the petition failed both on maintainability and limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory review confined to facts not previously before the Court cannot be used to raise a ground deliberately withheld earlier, and a review filed beyond the prescribed period is barred where pronouncement in open court operates as communication to the parties.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
