1995 (12) TMI 368 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act seeking reference of common questions of law to the High Court.
2. Refusal of adjournment by the Tribunal during the appeal hearing.
3. Competency and limitation of the appeal filed by the Commissioner under amended provisions of law.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to applications filed by an assessee under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, seeking direction to the Tribunal to refer common questions of law to the High Court. The applicant-firm, engaged in the business of grains and commission agents, had its assessment completed ex parte by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. Upon revision, the Additional Commissioner set aside the ex parte proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh assessment. Subsequent amendments in the Sales Tax Act allowed the Commissioner to file an appeal against the Additional Commissioner's order. The applicant raised objections to the appeal's tenability, which were initially overruled. The Tribunal proceeded with the appeal hearing in the absence of the applicant, ultimately setting aside the revisional order and upholding the ex parte assessment.

The judgment delves into the discretionary nature of adjournments, citing Lord Mansfield's principle that discretion must be sound, not arbitrary. It examines whether the refusal of adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion, especially in fiscal matters with high stakes involved. The judgment also questions the competency and limitation of the appeal filed by the Commissioner under the amended provisions of the law. The High Court re-formulated the questions arising from the Tribunal's order, focusing on the justification for declining adjournment and the tenability of the Commissioner's appeal within the legal framework.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the reference applications in part, directing the Tribunal to refer the specified questions of law for the Court's opinion. The Tribunal was mandated to properly state the case and refer the questions as per the provisions of the State Act. The parties were left to bear their own costs, and the Tribunal was instructed to comply with the order within a stipulated timeframe. The judgment concluded by retaining the order in the relevant case file and directing the placement of a copy in the connected case records.