9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall its order and direct a fresh hearing of the appeal. 2. Application of the principles of natural justice in the context of adjournment of appeal hearings. 3. Exercise of discretion by the court in favor of hearing and not shutting out hearing. 4. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the Tribunal's power to recall its order and direct a fresh hearing of the appeal. The petitioner, Commissioner of Income-tax, contended that the Tribunal, having decided the appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant, lacked the authority to recall its order. The petitioner relied on the provisions of the Income-tax Act and a previous judgment to support this argument. However, the court distinguished the cited judgment, emphasizing that the present situation involved unique circumstances where the appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Citing the inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal to set aside orders passed in default or ex parte, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to recall the order for a fresh hearing. 2. The application of principles of natural justice in the context of adjournment of appeal hearings was crucial to the court's analysis. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that parties are not condemned unheard and decisions are not reached behind their backs. In this case, the appellant, located at a distant place from the Tribunal's office, had applied for adjournment well in advance due to the inability to fully instruct counsel. The court noted that proper disposal of adjournment applications before the hearing date would have allowed the party to arrange representation if needed. The court found the recall of the ex parte order by the Tribunal to be just, considering the genuine belief of the appellant regarding the adjournment. 3. The court also delved into the exercise of discretion by emphasizing the need to favor hearing over shutting out hearing. Referring to previous judgments, the court stressed that the court's discretion should lean towards facilitating justice and not enforcing technicalities of law. In the context of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court underscored that this power should not be invoked to set aside just orders that do not adversely affect the petitioner. By dismissing the writ petition, the court reiterated the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring fair opportunities for parties to be heard. 4. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need to uphold principles of natural justice, exercise discretion in favor of hearing, and refrain from enforcing technicalities of law at the expense of justice. The judgment highlighted the Tribunal's inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders passed in default or ex parte when sufficient cause exists, ensuring that parties are not condemned unheard and proceedings are conducted fairly.
|
