Review jurisdiction limits new arguments; tax paid with returns was not refundable, while a fresh limitation plea failed.

Review jurisdiction allows correction of an apparent mistake, not the introduction of a new case or substitution of a fresh view. The Court held that sales tax paid along with statutory returns is paid under the return-and-self-assessment scheme and is not refundable merely because a later assessment order is quashed; refund with interest was confined to tax paid after returns pursuant to assessment or demand. The Revenue was also barred from raising, for the first time in review, a new limitation contention that the 1990-91 assessment was not time-barred, because review cannot reopen issues not urged in the original proceedings. The limited refund correction was allowed, but the new limitation challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in review, the direction requiring refund of sales tax paid along with the returns could be sustained; (ii) Whether the Revenue could raise for the first time in review the contention that the assessment for 1990-91 was not time-barred and that the limitation bar had been lifted by amendment.

Issue (i): Whether, in review, the direction requiring refund of sales tax paid along with the returns could be sustained.

Analysis: The Court held that tax paid along with the return is paid under the statutory scheme of return, self-assessment and payment, and is not the same as tax recovered pursuant to an assessment order later quashed. Relying on the settled principle that review lies only to correct an apparent mistake and not to substitute a view, the Court accepted the Revenue's objection that the earlier direction went beyond the governing legal position. It held that only tax paid after the filing of returns and pursuant to assessment or demand notices could be directed to be refunded with interest, while tax paid with the returns was not refundable.

Conclusion: The earlier refund direction was modified in favour of the Revenue, and the assessee was held not entitled to refund of tax paid with the returns.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could raise for the first time in review the contention that the assessment for 1990-91 was not time-barred and that the limitation bar had been lifted by amendment.

Analysis: The Court held that this contention had not been urged in the original hearing or in the pleadings, and a review cannot be used to introduce a wholly new factual or legal case. The Court also noted that the earlier judgment had consciously left the question of limitation open because the matter had been decided on the validity of the extension orders. The Court therefore declined to reopen the quashing of the assessment for 1990-91 on this new ground.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the assessment-related relief for 1990-91 was not reopened.

Final Conclusion: The review was allowed only to the limited extent of correcting the refund direction concerning tax paid with the returns, while the challenge to the quashing of the assessment order on the new limitation ground failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction permits correction of an apparent mistake, but not the introduction of a new case or the substitution of a fresh view; tax voluntarily paid along with statutory returns is not refundable merely because the assessment order is later quashed.

---