TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (3) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Madras, for a review of our judgment in T.C. No. 127 of 1964 delivered on 13th April, 1967. This application for review is under section 38(8) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and was filed on 11th April, 1968. The question that arose before us for decision was whether the sales of motor spare parts by a particular dealer should be assessed or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rence for sales, to locally purchased goods before selling goods purchased from outside the State, because locally purchased goods being second sales would not be liable to sales tax and exempted the turnover in question from assessment. In the revision case also, we agreed with the Tribunal and dismissed the revision case filed by the Government. Subsequently, on 4th May, 1967, the Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion was given, had expressed the view that the decision in Rathinaswamy Chettiar v. State of Madras[1962] 13 S.T.C. 419. requires reconsideration. But it appears to us that the fact that the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision expressed the above view about Rathinaswamy Chettiar v. State Of Madras[1968] 21 S.T.C. 25. should not be a ground for review under section 38(8) of the Madras General S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority which if brought to the notice of the judge at the first hearing might have altered the judgment, is not a new and important matter within the meaning of the provision in Order XLVII, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. (Vide Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure, Volume 2, page 1670, 13th Edition). There is one other point to be considered in this connection. Our judgment was given on 13th April, 1967....