Review for suppressed evidence is unavailable where material facts were deliberately withheld before the Tribunal.

Section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act permits review only on facts that were genuinely not before the Appellate Tribunal when it made its order, including evidentiary facts omitted through oversight, mistake, or error. It does not allow a party to withhold or suppress material evidence deliberately and then seek a second chance to prove its case. The provision must be construed to avoid rewarding negligence or fraud. On the stated facts, review was not maintainable because the evidence had been intentionally withheld, and the ruling went against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether review under section 12-A(6)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was available when relevant evidence had been deliberately withheld or suppressed before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The provision permits review only on the basis of facts that were not before the Tribunal when it passed the order. The expression is wide enough to cover, in an appropriate case, facts in issue and evidentiary facts that were genuinely absent because of oversight, mistake, or error. It does not extend to a party who intentionally withholds or suppresses material evidence and then seeks a second opportunity to prove the case. A construction allowing deliberate non-production would reward negligence or fraud and would be inconsistent with the language of the provision.

Conclusion: Review was not maintainable on the facts of these appeals, because the evidence had been intentionally withheld. The ruling is against the assessee.

---