9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for adjournment by post, it was his duty to have followed the case and to have obtained information of the next date fixed after his adjournment application dated 11/13th July, 2003 was granted. The appellant assessee has been most negligent in pursuing the proceedings as is reflected from the order of the Tribunal. This court finds absolutely no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any statutory provision, whereunder, after an adjournment is granted on an application made by post by the assessee it becomes the duty of the Tribunal to intimate the next date by post. It is not in dispute that the appeal was filed by the assessee himself, on 11/13th July, 2003, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecutive), Trade Tax, Bulandshahr, vide letter dated December 21, 2000 qua misuse of the eligibility certificate by the assessee. Accordingly, proceedings under section 4A(3) of the Trade Tax Act were initiated by the Commissioner, Trade Tax and a show-cause notice dated September 10, 2001 was issued, wherein it was stated that the assessee was involved in sale of goods manufactured by another unit, September 24, 2001 was fixed for hearing. On receipt of the notice, an application for adjournment was made by the appellant through post, which was granted and October 15, 2001 was fixed as the date for hearing. Again an adjournment application was made on which December 17, 2011 was fixed as the date. Nobody appeared on the date so fixed on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Tribunal also he repeated the same practice of seeking adjournment. For the purpose, adjournment applications were filed on April 28, 2003 and thereafter on July 11, 2003. The next date fixed was August 13, 2003. On the said date neither his counsel appeared nor an adjournment application was made. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal under the impugned order. It found no good ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that since the adjournment was prayed for on July 11, 2003, by means of an application sent through post, it was obligatory upon the Tribunal to have intimated the next date fixed in the matter by post, which has not been done. Therefore, the order impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
