Statutory tribunal review power is limited to express authority, with rectification confined to apparent errors only.

A statutory tribunal has no inherent power to review its own order unless that power is expressly or by necessary implication conferred by statute. Review under section 36(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is limited to discovery of new and important facts not previously within knowledge despite due diligence, so a claim based on counsel's alleged concession does not qualify. Rectification under section 55 is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-open findings based on evidence or to correct a disputed concession issue. The governing principle is that review and rectification remain tightly restricted to the statutory grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had any inherent power to review its earlier order in the absence of an express statutory provision; (ii) whether the dealer's applications could be sustained under section 36(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959; and (iii) whether the applications could be treated as rectification petitions under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Issue (i): whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had any inherent power to review its earlier order in the absence of an express statutory provision

Analysis: A statutory tribunal has only such powers as are conferred by the statute, either expressly or by necessary implication. The power of review is not an inherent power. Where the Act contains a restricted review provision, the tribunal cannot enlarge that power by invoking inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no inherent power to review its earlier order.

Issue (ii): whether the dealer's applications could be sustained under section 36(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959

Analysis: Section 36(6)(a) permits review only on discovery of new and important facts which, despite due diligence, were not within knowledge or could not be produced when the order was made. The applications were founded on the alleged mistake that counsel had made concessions, not on newly discovered facts. That ground did not satisfy the statutory condition for review.

Conclusion: The applications were not maintainable under section 36(6)(a).

Issue (iii): whether the applications could be treated as rectification petitions under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959

Analysis: Rectification under section 55 is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. The dealer had separately filed rectification petitions, which were held not maintainable and were not challenged. In any event, the tribunal's original order rested on evidence and findings, not on any mistaken assumption of counsel's concession, so the case did not involve an apparent error capable of rectification.

Conclusion: The applications could not be treated as valid rectification petitions under section 55.

Final Conclusion: The review order and the consequential appellate orders restoring the matter for fresh disposal were liable to be set aside, leaving the original assessment-based controversy unresolved by the impugned review process.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal has no inherent power to review its own order unless such power is expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the statute, and review or rectification can be exercised only within the strict limits of the governing provision.

---