Review under sales tax law cannot be reopened merely because a later Supreme Court ruling differs from the earlier view.

Review under section 38(8) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was confined to discovery of new and important facts that were not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence when the original order was made. A later Supreme Court decision taking a different view did not constitute a new fact and could not reopen a concluded judgment, in line with the principle under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The review petition was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a review under section 38(8) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was maintainable on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court decision expressing a view different from the earlier decision followed by the Court.

Analysis: Review under section 38(8) is confined to discovery of new and important facts that were not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence when the order was made. A subsequent judicial pronouncement does not amount to discovery of new and important facts for the purpose of review. The principle is consistent with the analogous rule under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a later ruling or authority is not a ground for reopening a concluded judgment. The petitioner could also have taken the matter in appeal after the later Supreme Court decision, but no such step was taken.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---