9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1113 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxAppeal dismissed for want of prosecution - Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Held that - Imperative it is for the Appellate Board where on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Appellate Board may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent - Evidently, the Appellate Board was not conferred with the discretion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The impugned order is set aside - The matter is relegated to the Appellate Board for decision in appeal on merits.
Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of the delay; Competence of the Appellate Board to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution; Interpretation of Rule 4-S of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006; Comparison with a similar Supreme Court judgment on dismissal of appeal for default or want of prosecution; Setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Appellate Board for decision on merits. Delay in Filing the Appeal and Condonation: The judgment addresses a delay of 70 days in filing the appeal, seeking condonation through I.A. No. 2278/2018. The Court considers the reasons mentioned in the application and finds a sufficient cause to condone the delay, ultimately granting the condonation and disposing of I.A. No. 2278/2018. Competence of the Appellate Board: The appeal challenges an order by the Appellate Board, Commercial Tax, Bhopal, dismissing the appeal under Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002, for want of prosecution. The appellant contests this order, arguing that the Appellate Board lacked the authority to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Interpretation of Rule 4-S: The judgment delves into Rule 4-S of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006, which outlines the procedure for hearing an appeal ex parte for default by the appellant. It emphasizes that the Appellate Board is mandated to dispose of the appeal on merits if the appellant fails to appear, rather than having the discretion to dismiss it for want of prosecution. Comparison with Supreme Court Judgment: A Supreme Court judgment, Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, is cited to support the argument against the Appellate Board's dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The Supreme Court's ruling highlights that the Tribunal should decide the appeal on merits even if the appellant is absent during the hearing, emphasizing the necessity to avoid dismissing appeals for default of appearance. Setting Aside the Impugned Order: Based on the interpretation of the relevant rules and the Supreme Court precedent, the judgment concludes that the impugned order of dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution is not in line with the law. Consequently, the order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Board for a decision on merits, directing the Board to issue fresh notices for fixing the date of hearing. The appeal is disposed of in this manner with no costs imposed.
|
