1964 (11) TMI 87 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the vires of regulation 8(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957 under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Interpretation of section 22(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 in relation to the regulation 8(2).
Validity of the dismissal of an appeal for default of appearance by the Appellate Tribunal.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Mysore involved a challenge to the vires of regulation 8(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The primary issue was whether the said regulation was ultra vires of section 22(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner had appealed before the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal for default of appearance by the petitioner and his counsel. The petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 4th September, 1963, based on the argument that regulation 8(2) was ultra vires of the Act. The Court examined the provisions of the Act, specifically section 22(4), which mandated the Tribunal to pass orders on the appeal after giving both parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court highlighted the importance of interpreting the expression "pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit" in section 22(4) to determine the scope of the Tribunal's authority in dismissing appeals for default.

The Court analyzed the meaning of the term "thereon" in section 22(4) by referring to similar provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It was established that the power of the Tribunal was limited to dealing with the subject matter of the appeal and could not expand beyond the grounds of appeal. Dismissing an appeal for default was deemed to be outside the subject matter of the appeal and contrary to the legislative mandate requiring the Tribunal to decide appeals on their merits. The Court held that regulation 8(2) authorizing dismissal for default was ultra vires of section 22(4) of the Act. The judgment also referenced a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court and a decision of the Patna High Court, supporting the view that such regulations were invalid.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that allowing the Tribunal to dismiss appeals for default would deprive appellants of their statutory right to seek revision in the High Court. The Court concluded that regulation 8(2) was ultra vires to the extent it empowered the Tribunal to dismiss appeals for default of appearance, directing the Tribunal to take up the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding the legislative intent and ensuring that appellants are not deprived of their rights due to procedural defaults.