2003 (8) TMI 515 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Failure to appear in the hearing of appeals
- Application for setting aside ex parte order
- Dismissal of the petition for restoration
- Interpretation of rule 60 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947
- Consideration of appeals on merits
- Quashing of Tribunal orders and remand for re-hearing

Analysis:

1. The petitioner failed to appear in the hearing of the appeals, leading to the Tribunal deciding the case on merits. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, but the Tribunal declined to restore the appeals, resulting in the dismissal of the petition for restoration.

2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of rule 60 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, which states that if the appellant does not appear in person or through an agent when the appeal is called for hearing, the Tribunal may decide it on its own merits after hearing the respondent or their agent. In this case, the petitioner did not appear, and the Tribunal should have decided the appeals on merits after hearing the State of Orissa or its agent.

3. The Tribunal's order dated May 23, 2000 did not consider the appeals of the petitioner against the enhanced gross turnover and taxable turnover on merits. The Tribunal's consideration was focused on the State's appeals and did not adequately address the petitioner's appeals. The lack of detailed examination of the materials supporting the findings of suppression led to the rejection of the petitioner's appeals, which was deemed not in accordance with rule 60(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947.

4. Consequently, the impugned orders dated May 23, 2000, and August 22, 2002, passed by the Tribunal were quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a re-hearing of the case afresh. The Tribunal was directed to re-hear not only the petitioner's appeals but also the State of Orissa's appeals and pass fresh orders after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to all parties involved.

5. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural rules, fair consideration of appeals on merits, and the right to a fair hearing in legal proceedings.