Tribunal review power cannot reopen a case for an un-cited precedent; new facts, not overlooked law, are required.

Statutory review by a sales tax tribunal cannot be invoked merely because an existing judicial precedent was not cited earlier, since that omission is not a new fact but a legal contention. The review power under section 22(6)(a) was confined to factual material not before the Tribunal when the original order was made, so the Tribunal could not reopen its order on that basis. Rectification under rule 38 was also unavailable because the Tribunal had not exercised that distinct power. Reliance on Articles 226 and 227 could not sustain the order in revision. The review order was therefore without authority, the earlier order was restored, and the matter was remitted for fresh factual investigation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal could review its earlier order under section 22(6)(a) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, on the ground that an existing judicial decision had not been cited, and whether the impugned order could be sustained as a rectification under rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory power of review under section 22(6)(a) is confined to a review on the basis of facts which were not before the Tribunal when the original order was made. The omission to cite an existing decision of the Court is not a new fact within that provision, because the provision contemplates new factual material relevant to the merits of the controversy, not a proposition of law or an overlooked precedent. A distinction was drawn between a factual basis for penalty and a legal contention that may defeat liability even if default is otherwise established. The Tribunal therefore lacked power to reopen its earlier order on the stated ground. The attempted reliance on rule 38 was rejected because rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record is a distinct power and the Tribunal had not exercised, or intended to exercise, that power. The suggested recourse to Articles 226 and 227 could not support the order in a revision under section 23(1), since the High Court was confined to examining the legal correctness of the question before the Tribunal and could not sustain the order on a different basis.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's review order was without authority and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order of the Tribunal was restored, and the matter was remitted for fresh investigation by the Commercial Tax Officer on all relevant aspects, including default and the extent thereof.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction conferred on a tax tribunal by statute cannot be invoked on the ground that an existing legal precedent was not cited earlier, because such omission is not a new fact but a question of law; a review cannot be converted into rectification or sustained by invoking an unexercised power.

---