Review jurisdiction and export-linked purchase tax exemption clarified under sales tax law, with the levy sustained.

Review under section 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act was held maintainable where the Tribunal corrected a patent legal error in its earlier appellate order, because review is confined to new matter, apparent error, or other sufficient reason and cannot be used as a second appeal. The challenge to the recall therefore failed. On exemption from purchase tax, section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act applies only to the last sale or purchase immediately preceding the export sale, and section 15(ca) does not extend immunity to a rice miller's purchase of paddy when the export sale is between the exporter and the foreign buyer. The purchase tax demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal exceeded its review jurisdiction under section 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 in recalling its earlier appellate order and restoring the assessment. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption from purchase tax on paddy under section 5(3) read with section 15(ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the footing that the rice manufactured from such paddy was exported.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal exceeded its review jurisdiction under section 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 in recalling its earlier appellate order and restoring the assessment.

Analysis: Review under section 41 is confined to discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its earlier decision merely because a different view is possible. On the facts, the earlier appellate order had proceeded on a patent misapplication of section 5(3) read with section 15(ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. That legal error constituted sufficient reason to entertain review, and the impugned order disclosed no jurisdictional infirmity.

Conclusion: The review was within jurisdiction and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption from purchase tax on paddy under section 5(3) read with section 15(ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the footing that the rice manufactured from such paddy was exported.

Analysis: Section 5(3) protects only the last sale or purchase preceding the sale occasioning export. Section 15(ca) treats paddy and rice as a single commodity only for the purposes of section 5(3), but it does not extend immunity to the purchase of paddy by the rice miller where the rice is sold to a direct exporter and the export sale is between the exporter and the foreign buyer. The petitioner's purchase of paddy was therefore not the immediate preceding purchase occasioning export and did not qualify for exemption.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to exemption from purchase tax and the levy was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed as the Tribunal's review order was held to be sustainable and the purchase tax demand was found to be legally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction under section 41 extends to correcting a patent legal error, and exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act applies only to the last sale or purchase immediately preceding the export sale.

---