TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (9) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls), Sales Tax, by his order dated 29th September, 1955, and the case was remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for making a fresh assessment. In pursuance of that order the Sales Tax Officer passed a fresh assessment order on 29th December, 1955. This order was again challenged in appeal and was set aside on 5th January, 1957, with a direction for passing a de novo assessment order. In between the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer dated 29th December, 1955, and the appellate order dated 5th January, 1957, one of the partners of the firm, viz., Madan Mohan, died on 7th August, 1956, so that the firm stood dissolved. Respondent Ramji Prasad Agarwal was one of the other partners of the firm. In pursuance of the order dated 5th January, 1957, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sales Tax Act with effect from 1st April, 1959. This section 29 was amended from time to time and one such amendment in this section was made by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 38 of 1975). Section 25 of the Amendment Act provides: "25. Amendment of section 29.-In section 29 of the principal Act,.................. (c) after sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted, namely: '(3) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or authority, no refund shall be allowed of any tax or fee due under this Act on the turnover of sales or purchases or both, as the case may be, admitted by the dealer in the returns filed by him or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be correct. But where that law is altered subsequently by an amending Act, which is brought into force with retrospective effect, the judgment pronounced is rendered "erroneous on the face of the record" and an application for review would be maintainable. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in M.K. Venkatachalam, Income-tax Officer v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.[1958] 34 I.T.R. 143 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 875. It was held: "If a mistake of fact apparent from the record of the assessment order can be rectified under section 35, we see no reason why a mistake of law which is glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified. Prima facie it may appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h had been exercised by the learned single Judge. The order of the learned single Judge merged in the order passed by the Division Bench. This order had been passed in the exercise of this court's jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. In Shivdeo Singh v. State of PunjabA.I.R. 1963 S C. 1909., it was held: "It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it." It is settled law that a writ of mandamus is issued directing a subordinate court, tribunal or authority to do a particular thing which....