2018 (11) TMI 1077 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Recall of ex-parte order - Jurisdiction - scope of section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - rectification under Section 22 of an ex-parte order passed in second appeal - Held that - No grounds have been made out for rectification under Section 22. This Court has held that the Trade Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction to set-aside an ex-parte order and re-hear the matter - the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the complete judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/S Ram Sewak Coal Depot (Supra). It appears that learned Tribunal has considered only the answer to the first question but has not considered the answer to the second question while deciding the application of the revisionist. The order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in Misc Application No.4 of 2017 is not sustainable and liable to be set-aside - The Tribunal is directed to re-consider the application of the revisionist afresh - revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of ex-parte order recall application rejection based on jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision stemming from an ex-parte order dated 19.07.2018 by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12. The revisionist challenged the order, which was decided ex-parte on 21.02.2017, due to the illness of their counsel. The Tribunal rejected the recall application citing jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, leading to the revision.

The main contention was whether the Tribunal had the authority to recall an ex-parte order. The Court examined the judgment in the case of M/S Ram Sewak Coal Depot and highlighted two key questions: (1) the permissibility of recalling an ex-parte order under Section 22, and (2) the Tribunal's jurisdiction to recall such an order. The Court found that the Tribunal indeed had the jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte order and re-hear the matter, as supported by relevant legal provisions and precedents.

The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's ancillary powers allowed for the setting aside of an ex-parte order to ensure a fair hearing and adherence to legal procedures. Drawing on Supreme Court judgments, the Court established that the Tribunal's authority to recall an ex-parte order was essential to uphold the principles of natural justice and prevent injustice. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's rejection of the recall application was erroneous and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the revisionist's application in line with the Court's observations.

In light of the detailed analysis and legal principles outlined in the judgment, the Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and instructing a fresh consideration of the revisionist's application.