Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S NEW KISAN INTT. UDYOG PAHADPUR HAVELI versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S New Kisan Intt. Udyog Pahadpur Haveli v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 926 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17056 (30 September 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.926 OF 2006

M/s New Kisan Intt. Udyog,  Bulandshahar.       ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow.   .Opp.party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 1st May, 2006 relating to the assessment year 2001-02, by which Tribunal has rejected the recalling application and refused to recall the order dated 14 November, 2005 passed in appeal no.865 of 2004.

Appeal no.865 of 2004 was decided ex-parte on account of non-appearance on behalf of the applicant on the date fixed. Applicant moved recalling application on the ground that the applicant had to go to South India for the treatment of his twin children, who are suffering from thalassemia decease and affidavit of Shri Pankaj Kumar, proprietor of the firm had also been filed. Various certificates of the hospital were also filed to prove that both the children were suffering from the thalassemia decease. Tribunal has rejected the recalling application on the ground that earlier also on the same ground several adjournments have been granted between 08.02.2005 to 25.10.2005. Tribunal held that no proper reason has been given for the recalling application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In my opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is pedantic and is not sustainable. Petitioner has given a reasonable cause for the non-appearance on the date fixed. In my view, Tribunal has taken pedantic view while in the matter of recalling application, justice oriented approach and pragmatic view should be taken as held by the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Rathore Vs. Omkar Singh and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC, 505.

In this view of the matter, revision is allowed and the order dated 1st May, 2006 passed by the Tribunal in appeal no.865 of 2004 for the assessment year 2001-02 is recalled. Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal no.865 of 2004 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant and to the revenue.

Dt.30.08.2006

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.