Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a second set of miscellaneous petitions seeking restoration of appeals already dismissed for default and earlier restoration petitions already rejected, and whether such an order amounted to an impermissible review of the Tribunal's earlier orders.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 36, 36(3), 36(6) and 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, along with the relevant rules, did not confer any inherent power on the Tribunal to reopen its earlier final orders by entertaining a second restoration application. Once the first set of restoration petitions had been dismissed, the proper remedy was to seek revision before the High Court, not to file repeated restoration applications before the Tribunal. The earlier decisions relied upon confirmed that the Tribunal cannot review or set aside its own order in the absence of express statutory authority, and that separate statutory orders are to be treated according to the specific provision under which they are made.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had no power to allow the second set of restoration petitions, and its order restoring the appeals was without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal created by statute cannot exercise an inherent power of review or restoration beyond the powers expressly conferred by the governing Act and Rules.