Limited statutory review cannot be expanded by civil procedure rules or fresh evidence; review application was dismissed.

Review under section 12-B(7) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was confined to correcting an order on the basis of facts not before the court when the order was made, and it did not permit fresh evidence, correction of deliberate omission, or reopening the matter like an appeal. Rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules was held inapplicable to the High Court in revision because it applied only to revising authorities under the Act. The general review power under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code could not enlarge the special statutory review jurisdiction. The review application was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for review of the revisional order was maintainable on the ground of an apparent mistake or alleged omission to consider evidence, and whether the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or the sales tax rules could enlarge the statutory power of review.

Analysis: The scope of review under section 12-B(7) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was confined to reviewing an order on the basis of facts which were not before the Court when the order was passed. That limited power did not permit the introduction of evidence that had not been placed before the Tribunal or the Court at the relevant time, nor could it be used to correct a case of deliberate omission or to reopen the matter as if on appeal. Rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules was held inapplicable to the High Court sitting in revision, since the rule referred to the revising authorities under the Act and not to the High Court. The general power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked to enlarge the special statutory review jurisdiction conferred by the Act.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.

---