2020 (5) TMI 537 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - reasonable opportunity of being heard denied - levy of Entry Tax - revision dismissed for want of prosecution - HELD THAT - The records do not reveal in specific terms as to whether the notices were served on the petitioner or not as there is no endorsement as regards receipt of the notices by the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the revision was preferred by petitioner and not by the Revenue and therefore it was the bounden duty of petitioner to be abreast with the dates of hearings. Since the Revision was filed by the petitioner it was his responsibility to be aware of the dates of hearing. The petitioner cannot pass on the buck to anyone else and thus cannot take shelter of non-service of notice as regards date of hearing. The revisional authority has dismissed the revision for want of prosecution - If the petitioner after preferring the revision does not choose to appear on any of the dates fixed petitioner runs the risk of dismissal of his Revision for want of prosecution. This court does not see any illegality, impropriety or rampant irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Revisional authorities which accordingly does not deserve any interference and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition challenging dismissal of revision under Sec. 62(1) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act 1994 for want of prosecution.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the 1994 Act, had an assessment order passed against them for the period from 1-4-1998 to 31-3-1999. Sales amounting to ? 3389180/- were found un-assessed, leading to the imposition of commercial tax and penalty. The petitioner filed a revision under Sec. 62(1) of the Act against the levied taxes, which was subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution. The main contention raised was the denial of a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the revisional authority.

Upon examination of the records, it was revealed that the revision was filed by the petitioner against an order dated 26/5/2004. Notices were issued to the petitioner for various hearing dates, but it was not explicitly confirmed whether the notices were served. The court emphasized that since the revision was initiated by the petitioner, it was their responsibility to stay informed about the hearing dates. Failure to appear on scheduled dates could result in dismissal for want of prosecution. The court held that the petitioner alone was accountable for the dismissal of the revision and could not blame non-service of notices for their inaction.

Consequently, the court found no legal flaws or irregularities in the impugned order by the revisional authorities. As a result, the petition was dismissed, and the records were directed to be returned to the office of the Additional Advocate General.