Review jurisdiction requires new facts and due diligence; later certificates could not justify reopening the penalty order.

Review jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could be exercised only on discovery of new and important facts, despite due diligence, that were not within the applicant's knowledge and could not have been produced earlier. The Tribunal's reopening of its earlier order based on a later certificate and an amended registration certificate was unjustified because the relevant facts were already known, and the buyer's tax payment did not affect the statutory test for review. The review order was therefore unsustainable, and the original order confirming the penalty was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in reviewing its earlier order and reducing the penalty on the basis of a subsequent certificate and an amended registration certificate.

Analysis: Review under section 36(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is available only when new and important facts are discovered after the exercise of due diligence and those facts were not within the applicant's knowledge and could not have been produced when the original order was made. The assessee already knew that the buyer had utilised the cotton for manufacture, and the amended registration certificate was obtained only after the original order. The buyer's payment of tax had no bearing on the maintainability of review. As the conditions for review were not satisfied, the Tribunal had no basis to reopen its earlier decision.

Conclusion: The review order was not sustainable and the original order confirming the penalty was restored.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the penalty as originally affirmed stood revived.

Ratio Decidendi: A review can be exercised only on discovery of new and important facts after due diligence, and not on facts already within the applicant's knowledge or on subsequent events that do not satisfy the statutory test for review.

---