MADURI MOTORS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the review of an order dated 5th January, 1960, passed by the Bench in T.R.C. No. 46 of 1959 confirming the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal made in Tribunal Appeal No. 443 of 1957 and dismissing the revision.

(2.) THE petitioner herein, Maduri Motors, Secunderabad, was a dealer in motor trucks and chassis as the authorised agent of M/s. Tata Engineering Works, Jamshedpur, for the year of assessment 1955-56. He claimed a deduction of Rs. 29,565-3-3 from the gross turnover under rule 8(1)(g) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, as transport charges for the trucks and chassis sold at Secunderabad. The said claim for deduction was not conceded by the Sales Tax Authorities. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has, by its order dated 21st December, 1957, rejected the said claim for deduction. The petitioner-dealer preferred a revision to this Court. By an order dated 5th January, 1960, this Bench did not accede to the contention of the petitioner-dealer and confirmed the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The present petition is filed for the review of the said order of this Division Bench raising a question of law whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that heard the appeal T.A. No. 443 of 1957 and decided it on 21st December, 1957, was validly constituted under law.

(3.) AT the outset, we have to notice that the provisions of the Act are definitive of the limits within which a review is permitted. It is obviously so for the reason that a review is not ordinarily permissible under inherent powers. Vide Anantharaju Shetty v. Appu Hogada ((1919) 37 M.L.J. 162) and Fernandes v. Ranganayakulu Chetty (A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 236). Sri Rama Rao has contended that the constitution of the Tribunal directly cuts at the root of the order pronounced by it and that we could take notice of the fact that only two members comprised the Tribunal which heard and disposed of the Tribunal Appeal No. 443 of 1957 preferred by the petitioner. We have to say that from the fact that two members had heard and disposed of the appeal, it does not necessarily follow that they did not comprise a properly constituted Tribunal. Section 3 of the Act, in so far as it is relevant, is in these terms :