Bench:
Ayyangar , N. Rajgopala; Sarkar, A. K Gupta; KC Das
Petitioner:
Tungabhadra Industries Ltd.
Respondent:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Issue
Whether the order made for dismissal of the petition is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record?
Facts
- The appellant, while submitting his return disclosing his turnover of the sale of oil, included the value of hydrogenated groundnut oil that he sold and claimed a deduction under Rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, in respect of the value of groundnuts which were used for conversion, and for which he had paid tax while purchasing.
- The Sales Tax Authority rejected the claim on the grounds that hydrogenated groundnut oil was not groundnut oil under the Rule.
- This view was upheld in the High Court and the Court granted a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.
- The same question arose for the next three consecutive years and was decided against the appellant by the Sales Tax Authorities and the High Court. The appellant then applied for a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) but the petition was dismissed by the High Court stating that the case did not involve any substantial question of law, in the order of September 4, 1959.
- Later three applications for review on grounds of relief were filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC; they were dismissed.
- The appellant then applied for special leave under Article 136, against the orders dismissing the applications for review and leave was granted after notice to the respondent.
Appellant contention
- The appellant is, without a doubt, a manufacturer who is registered under that provision. In respect of the year 1949-50, the appellant included the value of the hydrogenated oil he sold in his return disclosing his oil sales turnover and claimed a deduction under the rule in respect of the value of the groundnuts used for conversion into hydrogenated oil on which he had paid tax at the time of their purchase.
- The Sales Tax authorities denied this claim, claiming that "hydrogenated groundnut oil" was not "groundnut oil" within the meaning of r. 18 of the Sales Tax Act (2).
Respondent’s Contentions
- The special leave granted to the appellant is to be revoked.
- The grounds for revoking the special leave were not urged by the respondent at the time of hearing of the applications under Article 136, nor were they set out in the statement of case filed by the respondent under Order XVIII of the SC Rules, 1950.
The relevant paragraph of the original judgement
- Before we conclude, we'd like to make a point based on an appeal made to us by learned Counsel for the respondent, who argued that even if the appeal were allowed, we shouldn't make any cost orders against his client. The appellant's right to the benefit of the exemption he claimed and was denied by the High Court in T.R.Cs 75, 76, and 77 really hinged on the correct construction of r. 18(2) of the Turnover & Assessment Rules, and in particular on the meaning of the term "groundnut oil" as used there—whether it included "hydrogenated oil."
- It is now possible to state the facts in this case. The applications for reviewing the September 4, 1959 order rejecting the certificates were filed on November 23, 1959, as previously stated. Appellant filed petitions seeking special leave of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution during the pendency of those review applications on November 30, 1959, but those petitions were filed after the time limit set by the Rules. As a result, an application was filed together with the special leave petitions, requesting that the petitions be excused from being filed late.
- The petitions and the applications for condonation of the delay came on together for hearing and this Court refused to condone the delay so that the petitions for special leave never legally came on the file of this Court.
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that, when the notice is given to the respondent before the hearing of the application for grant of special leave, no objection with respect to the maintainability or granting of the special leave would be permitted at any stage after the grant of it, with an exception to it. The statement in the order of September 4, 1959, was an error apparent on the face of record within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC as in this case, without any elaborate argument, one could point out the error that there was a substantial point of law which starred in the face. When the petitions for review were pending for three consecutive years, the Sales Tax Authority should have afforded the appellant the benefit of the decision of the Court. If on any technical or similar points the State is entitled, they won’t be prevented from collecting the tax. As the respondent failed to raise the objection, the appellant should not be deprived of its right to costs. Lastly, the appeal was allowed and the High Court judgement with respect to the three appeals was reversed and the petition for review was allowed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
