2011 (7) TMI 1074 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether it is not obligatory upon the Tribunal to intimate every date fixed in the matter for hearing by registered post especially once a notice of the proceedings is served upon the assessee and he puts in appearance? Held that - The learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any statutory provision, whereunder, after an adjournment is granted on an application made by post by the assessee it becomes the duty of the Tribunal to intimate the next date by post. It is not in dispute that the appeal was filed by the assessee himself, on 11/13th July, 2003, the appellant made an application for adjournment by post, it was his duty to have followed the case and to have obtained information of the next date fixed after his adjournment application dated 11/13th July, 2003 was granted. The appellant assessee has been most negligent in pursuing the proceedings as is reflected from the order of the Tribunal. This court finds absolutely no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any statutory provision, whereunder, after an adjournment is granted on an application made by post by the assessee it becomes the duty of the Tribunal to intimate the next date by post. It is not in dispute that the appeal was filed by the assessee himself, on 11/13th July, 2003, the appellant made an application for adjournment by post, it was his duty to have followed the case and to have obtained information of the next date fixed after his adjournment application dated 11/13th July, 2003 was granted. The appellant assessee has been most negligent in pursuing the proceedings as is reflected from the order of the Tribunal. This court finds absolutely no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of Trade Tax Tribunal order under section 10(2) of U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant seeking to quash the Trade Tax Tribunal's order, which dismissed the appeal filed under section 10(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The appellant was granted an eligibility certificate under section 4A of the Act, allowing tax exemption on products for a specified period. The Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 4A(3) due to alleged misuse of the certificate. Despite multiple adjournments, the Commissioner eventually canceled the exemption certificate. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, repeating the pattern of seeking adjournments. The Tribunal, finding no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's order, proceeded to decide the appeal.

Legal Contention:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to inform the next hearing date after an adjournment requested through post, citing a previous judgment. In response, the standing counsel contended that the Tribunal was not obligated to inform every date post adjournment, as the appellant should track the case progress. The Court examined the submissions and records, noting the appellant's negligence in following the proceedings. No statutory provision mandated the Tribunal to notify the next date post adjournment requested by the appellant. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, dismissing the trade tax revision.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the trade tax revision, upholding the Tribunal's decision. However, it clarified that the dismissal would not prejudice the appellant's right to seek a recall of the ex parte order if permissible under the law. The judgment emphasized the appellant's responsibility to actively participate in the proceedings and stay informed about the case progress, highlighting the importance of diligence in legal matters.