2021 (9) TMI 427 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Application for restoration of the revision petition - revisional authority recorded that the petitioner is not appearing consistently since long time and dodging the proceedings - HELD THAT - In absence of any reliable evidence of the petitioner filing restoration application on 01.01.2014 as stated, in the present case we are unable to accept the stand of the petitioner in this respect. It is true that the petitioner relies on some stamping purported to be by the departmental authorities of having received the application for restoration on 01.01.2014, however, the respondents have denied any such application being on record. More importantly, if such application was filed on 01.01.2014 as is stated by the petitioner, there was no further requirement of filing a fresh application on 24.03.2021. This application is premised on the ground that he had never received the order of dismissal of revision petition and, therefore, he was filing a restoration application several years later. This is in conflict with his stand that he had filed the restoration application way back on 01.01.2014. Even his assertion that he had never received the order of dismissal of revision petition is disputed by the Commissioner while dismissing the application for restoration in which he has recorded that the said order was served on the petitioner on 23.11.2013. Even the assessment order records that despite issuance of several notices and adjournment of the proceedings on various occasions the petitioner did not remain present. Even while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner, the Commissioner has recorded that he was given sufficient opportunities and all that the petitioner was interested was in prolonging the litigation. The petitioner has not showed any serious inclination to pursue his cause on merits - Revision petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of revisional authority dismissing restoration application.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer engaged in import and sale, challenged an order levying unpaid tax and penalty. Despite multiple notices and hearing dates, neither the dealer nor the representative appeared, leading to ex parte assessment. The dealer then filed a revision petition, but the revisional authority dismissed it for default due to consistent absence, believing the dealer was not interested in disposal. Subsequently, the dealer filed a restoration application, claiming unawareness of legal technicalities and reliance on the lawyer. The revisional authority dismissed this restoration application, citing receipt of the dismissal order in 2013 and deeming the application baseless after 8 years.

The petitioner's counsel argued that an application for restoration was made immediately after the dismissal, emphasizing a need for a merit examination. However, the Government Advocate opposed, stating no record of the alleged restoration application in 2014 exists, only acknowledging the belated application in 2021. The court found no reliable evidence of the 2014 restoration application, noting discrepancies in the petitioner's claims and actions. Despite the petitioner's assertion of not receiving the dismissal order, the Commissioner's records and assessment order contradicted, indicating lack of serious pursuit of the case on merits.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision petition, along with any pending applications, due to the petitioner's failure to demonstrate a genuine commitment to pursue the case on its merits. The belated and conflicting restoration applications, coupled with the petitioner's history of prolonging litigation, led to the rejection of the restoration request and the dismissal of the revision petition.