2019 (5) TMI 203 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the Tribunal has not recorded any specific finding with regard to non-appearance of the revisionist and the claim of the revisionist that he was not well on the date fixed. The Tribunal has recorded otherwise a finding that several opportunities were allowed to the revisionist to furnish the explanation but since the revisionist failed to appear before the Tribunal there was no occasion but to conclude the proceeding - The Tribunal has, therefore, rejected the application filed under Section 22 however the tribunal has rectified the mistake which are noticed by treating it that there was mistake. It would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal to reconsider the claim of the revisionist both on merits as well as nonappearance on the date fixed - revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of rejecting application for setting aside ex-parte order
2. Denial of opportunity of hearing to the applicant
3. Tribunal's authority to rectify its own order
4. Failure to record independent finding on non-appearance reason
5. Denial of opportunity for presentation of statutory Forms

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The revisionist challenged the rejection of the application made for setting aside the ex-parte order by the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal failed to record a specific finding on the non-appearance of the revisionist and the claim of illness. The High Court noted the absence of a specific finding and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Issue 2:
The revisionist contended that the Tribunal did not provide an opportunity for a hearing. The High Court observed that the Tribunal concluded the proceedings due to the revisionist's failure to appear, without recording a specific finding on the non-appearance reason. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on both merit and non-appearance grounds.

Issue 3:
The question arose whether the Tribunal can rectify its own order upon application by the revisionist, especially when the initial application was rejected. The High Court directed a reconsideration of the revisionist's claim, indicating that the Tribunal rectified the mistake by treating it as such.

Issue 4:
Regarding the Tribunal's failure to record an independent finding on the reason for non-appearance, the High Court emphasized the lack of specific findings and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration, instructing the Tribunal to pass a reasoned order after providing an opportunity for a hearing.

Issue 5:
The revisionist sought to present statutory Forms not submitted earlier due to the ex-parte proceedings. The Tribunal refused to accept the Forms produced post the initial orders. The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the revisionist's claim and provide an opportunity for a hearing within six months, setting aside the Tribunal's order dated 17.02.2010.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed both revisions, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a thorough reconsideration of the revisionist's claims, ensuring compliance with the law and providing an opportunity for a hearing.