STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. HOTEL VASANTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Tax Case Revision is filed at the instance of the Revenue as against the order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of assessment year 1998-99. The above Tax Case Revision was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

(2.) Referring to the decision Gollapudi Suryanarayana Chetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1980 45 STC 227 on the scope of review, the Tribunal held that when a subsequent decision of the High Court could not be treated as new and important fact, the review based on subsequent order would not lie. But, as the prayer in the revision to review the earlier order was not based on any subsequent decision of any higher appellate forum, the Tribunal considered that this was a new and important fact requiring review of the order and hence, the petition to review the order was maintainable. Thus, as the review sought for was based on records which were not made available to the petitioner while passing of the order of this Tribunal; hence, the claim of the assessee based on the order passed by the Department of Tourism granting the star status from the assessment year 1999-2000 was to be taken note of, warranting the review of the order passed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by this, the State is on revision before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed before this Court the order on granting star status from 13.10.1999 under proceedings dated 13.8.2002 and submitted that the Tribunal had rightly taken note of the subsequent order which was not available at the time of Tribunal passed order rejecting the assessee's appeal. Hence, no fault could be seen on this order. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decisions State of Kerala and Another v. P.K. Syed Akbar Sahib, 1988 70 STC 191 Texmaco Ltd. and Another v. State of A.P. and Another, 2000 118 STC 290 and British Physical Lab India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Another, 1998 9 JT 313 and submitted that when the section itself does not speak on restrictions to be read into the scope of powers on review, subsequent development could not be held against the assessee and no limitation could be read into the provision under Section 35 of the Act. In other words, even though the Department of Tourism had passed an order on 13.8.2002, subsequent to the passing of the order by the Tribunal on 20.5.2002, considering the status of the assessee's hotel as star hotel for the subsequent year, the factual error was rightly taken note of by the Tribunal to correct its order. In the circumstances, no exception could be taken to the order of the Tribunal reviewing its order by allowing the assessee's appeal.