2019 (2) TMI 70 - AAAR - VAT and Sales Tax

Quashing of Order passed by Authority directing that the state of U.P. be proceeded against ex-parte - Held that - The relevant entry in the register of this Authority shows that on 08.03.2018 Mr. Ravinder Ratnakar Singh, Assistant Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh was indeed present. It appears that this was not pointed out to the then incharge Chairman of this Authority. In the circumstances, order dated 08.03.2018 directing that respondent no. 24 be proceeded against ex-parte is set aside - application disposed off - Adjourned to 18.04.2019.

Summary

Issues:
Setting aside an ex-parte order due to the presence of the representative of the State of Uttar Pradesh on a specific date.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around an application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking to set aside an ex-parte order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority. The application stated that the representative of the State of Uttar Pradesh was present on the mentioned date, contrary to the order. Upon verification of the register, it was confirmed that Mr. Ravinder Ratnakar Singh, Assistant Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, was indeed present on 08.03.2018. However, this information was not brought to the attention of the then incharge Chairman of the Authority, leading to a misconception. Consequently, the order directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to be proceeded against ex-parte was set aside, and the application was disposed of. The State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to file its counter promptly.

The judgment further adjourned the matter to 18.04.2019. It instructed the respondent States, who had not filed their replies, to do so before the adjourned date. This directive ensured that all concerned parties had the opportunity to present their responses and participate in the proceedings effectively. The order aimed to maintain fairness and procedural regularity in the adjudication process, emphasizing the importance of allowing all parties to present their arguments and evidence before reaching a decision. The decision to adjourn the case provided an extended timeline for the respondents to fulfill their filing obligations, promoting transparency and due process in the legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of setting aside an ex-parte order based on the presence of the State of Uttar Pradesh's representative on the specified date. It highlighted the significance of accurate record-keeping and communication within the Appellate Authority to prevent misconceptions and ensure procedural fairness. Additionally, the order's adjournment to a later date underscored the commitment to affording all parties the opportunity to participate fully in the legal process, reinforcing the principles of natural justice and equitable treatment in the resolution of disputes.