JUDGMENT
1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in the business of electrical goods, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing : (1) order dated June 24, 1987, passed by respondent No. 1 – Commissioner of Sales Tax, (2) order dated November 13, 1987, passed by respondent No. 4 – Sales Tax Officer, (3) order dated April 28, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 – Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and orders dated August 11, 1989 and April 20, 1992, passed by respondent No. 3 – Sales Tax Tribunal. Yet another direction is sought to respondent No. 1 to grant exemption to the petitioner under rule 7(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short “the Rules”).
2. The petitioner carries on its business on the first floor of premises No. 1828-29, Bhagirath Place, Delhi. It applied for amendment of its registration certificate under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short “the Act”) for storing of goods and keeping its books of accounts in the ground floor of property bearing No. 2024, Katra Lachhu Singh, Delhi. The registration certificate of the petitioner was amended to the effect that the premises at Katra Lachhu Singh, Delhi, was entered therein as warehouse/godown. The registration certificate was again amended on the application of the petitioner and certain more additional items were incorporated therein. It was alleged that on November 11, 1985, that is, after more than three years of the amendment of the registration certificate with respect to the addition of items and entering of the premises at Katra Lachhu Singh as warehouse/godown, a fire broke out at the said premises and its books of accounts as also certain ST-1 forms got burnt. It appears that subsequently, on December 5, 1986, the petitioner moved yet another application to the sales tax authorities for rectification of a mistake in the registration certificate to the effect that instead of mentioning of the premises at Katra Lachhu Singh as warehouse/godown, it be mentioned as its additional place of business. The petitioner also moved an application under rule 7(3) of the Rules before the Commissioner of Sales Tax for grant of exemption with regard to production of ST-1 declarations on the ground that its ST-1 declaration forms had got burnt in the fire. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Commissioner of Sales Tax on the ground that the premises at Katra Lachhu Singh, which had got burnt, was not the place of business of the petitioner where he could keep its books of accounts. The rectification application was also rejected by the Sales Tax Officer. Petitioner’s appeals against the rejection of its application under rule 7(3) of the Rules as also against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer rejecting rectification application were dismissed. The petitioner carried the matter further in appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, vide its order dated August 11, 1989, dismissed both the appeals of the petitioner.
3. Admittedly the petitioner did not move reference application under section 45 of the act against the said order of the Tribunal and instead filed an application seeking review of the said order on the ground that neither the sales tax authorities nor the Tribunal had appreciated the facts of the case in rejecting petitioner’s plea for rectification of the registration certificate and its application under rule 7(3) of the said Rules and that the Tribunal had also failed to apply its mind properly to the facts that the statutory forms were destroyed in fire while they were lying in the business premises only. It was contended before the Tribunal that its order suffered from factual as well as legal errors apparent from the record and, therefore, needed to be reviewed. The Tribunal, vide its order dated April 28, 1992, held that in the garb of the review application, the petitioner was seeking reappraisal of the same facts which had been duly considered by the Tribunal while deciding its appeal on August 11, 1989, which was beyond the scope of review. Accordingly petitioner’s review application was dismissed.
4. We have heard Mr. Balram Sangal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the aforesaid orders. Admittedly the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under section 45 of the Act by way of a reference to this Court if it was at all aggrieved of the Tribunal’s order dated August 11, 1989, but for unknown reasons it did not avail of the said remedy. It is now too late in the day for the petitioner to contend that the said orders suffered from some infirmity. The scope of review being limited, no fault can either be found with the order of the Tribunal dated April 28, 1992, dismissing petitioner’s review application. Apart from the fact that the petition is highly belated, even otherwise there is no ground for us to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal.
5. Dismissed.
6. Petition dismissed.