Statutory review and revision are confined to prescribed grounds and limitation; pending penalty proceedings do not extend revision time.

Section 39(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 confines review to discovery of new and important facts not earlier within knowledge despite due diligence, so it does not permit correction of errors and a smaller Bench should not review an order of a larger Bench. Section 35(2A) limits revisional power to points not decided in appeal or revision and operates within the prescribed time limit; pending proceedings against a separate penalty order do not extend time to revise the assessment order. The stated effect is that review or revision outside these statutory limits is impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal, constituted with fewer members, could review an order passed by a larger Bench; (ii) Whether a review was maintainable under Section 39(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 in the absence of new and important facts; (iii) Whether Section 35(2A) of the Act permitted revision after expiry of four years merely because proceedings against a penalty order were pending.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal, constituted with fewer members, could review an order passed by a larger Bench.

Analysis: The review power under Section 39(7) is a limited statutory power confined to review by the Appellate Tribunal of its own orders on the specified grounds. A Bench of lesser strength ought not, as a matter of judicial propriety, to sit in review over an order passed by a larger Bench, particularly when the statute does not confer any broader power of intra-tribunal correction.

Conclusion: The review by the smaller Bench was improper and not in accordance with judicial propriety.

Issue (ii): Whether a review was maintainable under Section 39(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 in the absence of new and important facts.

Analysis: Section 39(7) 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 original order was made. The provision does not authorise review on the ground of correction of errors, which is separately provided for under Section 43. Since no new or important facts were shown, the statutory requirements for review were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The review was not maintainable and was rightly answered against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 permitted revision after expiry of four years merely because proceedings against a penalty order were pending.

Analysis: Section 35(2A) extends the Deputy Commissioner's revisional power only to any point not decided in an appeal or revision, and only within one year from the date of the order in such appeal or revision or within four years from the original order, whichever is later. The prohibition in Section 35(2) applies to the pendency of appeal or revision against the order sought to be revised, not to separate proceedings against a penalty order. Pendency of proceedings on the penalty order could not extend the limitation for revising the assessment order beyond the statutory period.

Conclusion: Section 35(2A) did not authorise the revision, and the answer was in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order and the review based upon it could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded on all substantial questions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory review is maintainable only within the precise grounds and limits prescribed by the enactment, and a revisional power cannot be extended beyond the prescribed limitation by referring to pendency of proceedings unrelated to the order sought to be revised.

---