1993 (9) TMI 106 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessee s sales tax registrations under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 with effect from July 1 1987 cancelled - Held that - As at the stage of proceedings where the personal presence of the party in the court is not normally expected-such as the stage of final arguments in a suit or the arguments in appeal-other than the stage say of evidence where the party s presence is normally expected it might perhaps be proper to ensure that learned counsel who seeks to retire from the case at the very last moment had earlier given notice to the client. Ends of justice would be met if the appellant has one more opportunity of being heard. We did not understand Sri Firoz learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala to oppose this prayer of the petitioner. The order dated June 1 1990 of the High Court is set aside and Tax Revision Case No. 169 of 1989 is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Issues:
1. Dismissal of tax revision case for default
2. Application to set aside the dismissal order and restore the case
3. Delay in filing the application to restore the case
4. Grounds for restoration of the case
5. Request for recalling the dismissal order and opportunity to be heard

Analysis:
1. The tax revision case was dismissed for default on January 25, 1990, due to the absence of the petitioner or any authorized representative during the hearing. The dismissal was based on the lack of appearance on the scheduled date despite prior adjournment and instructions to show the party's name in the cause title. The dismissal was challenged through subsequent applications.

2. An application, C.M.P. No. 1611 of 1990, was filed to set aside the dismissal order and restore the case. Another application, C.M.P. No. 1612 of 1990, was filed to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the petition for restoration. The reasons provided in the applications were deemed vague and insufficient to warrant condonation of the delay, leading to the rejection of both applications.

3. The delay in filing the application for restoration was not adequately justified by the petitioner. Despite claiming to have known about the dismissal only on April 4, 1990, the petitioner failed to provide a convincing reason for the delay. The court found the petitioner's assertions lacking in clarity and substance, leading to the rejection of the delay condonation application.

4. The grounds stated in the affidavit supporting the petition to restore the case were considered vague and unsubstantiated. The lack of a clear statement or evidence regarding the petitioner's desire to engage new counsel further weakened the case for restoration. The court found the averments insufficient to support the restoration of the case.

5. The appellant later sought to recall the dismissal order and requested an opportunity to be heard, citing the lack of intimation by the previous counsel about retirement from the case. The High Court rejected this prayer, prompting the appellant to appeal. The Supreme Court, considering the interests of justice, set aside the High Court's order and remitted the case for fresh disposal, allowing the appellant another chance to be heard.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court granted the appellant an opportunity for fresh disposal of the tax revision case, emphasizing the importance of ensuring due process and the right to be heard. The judgment highlighted the need for clear and substantiated grounds in legal proceedings to support applications for restoration or recall of orders.

← Previous Next →