High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Indian Steel Works v. The Sales Tax Commisioner - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1705 of 1990  RD-AH 5 (7 January 2003)
Sales Tax Revision no. 1705 Of 1990
M/S Indian Steel Works---------------------------------Applicant.
Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow...............Respondent.
Sales Tax Revision no.1706/90
M/S Indian Steel Works ..............Applicant.
The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P.Luckow............Respondent.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These are two S. T. R. nos.1705/90 and 1706/90 filed by the assessee against the order of Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench dated 11th October, 1995, by which, two applications for recalling the earlier orders dated 21.4.1990 relating to the assessment year 1983-84 and the order dated 30th April, 1990 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 have been dismissed. Vide order dated 21.4.1990, the Tribunal has decided the appeal of the applicant ex-parte for the assessment year 1983-84 and vide order dated 30th April, 1990, the Tribunal has decided the appeal ex-parte relating to the assessment year 1984-85. Appeal no. 18/87 filed by the applicant for the assessment year 1983-84 and Appeal no.22/87 filed by the applicant for the assessment year 1984-85 were fixed for hearing on 6.4.1990 before the Tribunal. It appears that no one appeared on behalf of assesses and therefore, ex-parte orders have been passed. To recall the ex-parte orders, two applications have been filed before the Tribunal. In the application, it was contended that the notices of hearing were served on Sri Pravin Kumar Chopra, partner of the firm. It was contended that Sri Pravin Kumar Chopra was not looking after the cases and was not aware about the proceedings and in as much as, he had gone out of Station on 22.3.1990 and had fallen ill there and in the circumstances, he could not inform the other partner about the date of hearing. A medical certificate and an affidavit was filed. I have heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned Counsel for ;the applicant and learned Standing Counsel. The Tribunal vide order dated 11th October, 1990, rejected the aforesaid two applications and against the said orders, the present revisions have been filed. I have heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel. The order of Tribunal shows that it has not been disputed that Sri Pravin Kumar Chopra was not doing the pairvy of the case and ever appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not disputed the averment made in the application and in the affidavit. The Tribunal has proceeded that on the earlier occasion, adjournment was granted and record does not show who was actual partner of the firm dealing with the assessment case.
In my opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is pedantic. Normally, appeal should be heard after hearing both the parties. If on account of some reason, assessee could not appear on the date fixed and reasons has been explained in the application, it is always in the interest of justice to provide opportunity of hearing and recall ex-parte orders.
In my opinion, Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the restoration applications. On the facts and circumstances, restoration applications are allowed.
For the reasons above, revisions are allowed. Restoration application no.8/90 in Appeal no.16/87 and Restoration application no.9/90 in Appeal no. 16/87 are allowed. The ex-parte orders passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals are set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeals afresh after giving proper opportunities of hearing to the parties expeditiously.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.