9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the first question but has not considered the answer to the second question while deciding the application of the revisionist. The order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in Misc Application No.4 of 2017 is not sustainable and liable to be set-aside - The Tribunal is directed to re-consider the application of the revisionist afresh - revision allowed. - Trade Tax Revision No. - 71 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2018 - Rajnish Kumar, J. For the Applicant : Pradeep Agrawal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER Rajnish Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant revision has emanated from the judgment and order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-3, Lu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the case of the revisionist does not fall under Section 22 of the Act therefore the application is not maintainable. He further submitted that the application of the revisionist was not under Section 22 of the Act. The learned Tribunal has rejected the application without considering the complete judgment of this Court rendered in the case of M/S Ram Sewak Coal Depot (Supra). In the said case, this Court has specifically held that the Trade Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte order and re-hear the matter. Therefore the submission is that the learned Tribunal has erroneously rejected the application for recall of the revisionist, which is liable to be set-aside. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arte order? This Court firstly considered the first question and held in paragraph 17 that from the facts brought in the case, no grounds have made out for rectification under Section 22. Thereafter from paragraph 18 the Court considered the next question as to whether Tribuanl has any jurisdiction to recall an order which has been passed ex-parte. After considering the same this Court held that the Trade Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction to set-aside an ex-parte order and re-hear the matter. The relevent paragraphs 23 to 28 are reproduced as under:- 23. Appellate Tribunal deciding an appeal has all powers expressly provided in the Act as well as ancillary and incidental to the exercise of power. Section 19-A of U.P. General Clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was laid down : 10. When sub-section (1) of Section 11 expressly and in clear terms confers power upon the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, it must necessarily be endowed with all powers which bring about an adjudication of an existing industrial dispute, after affording all the parties an opportunity of a hearing. We are inclined to the view that where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient cause, and is faced with an ex parte award, it is as if the party is visited with an award without a notice of the proceedings. It is needless to stress that where the Tribunal proceeds to make an award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the industrial Tribunal failed to attend or bo represented, the Industrial Tribunal could proceed as if the party had duly attended or had been represented. If, therefore, there was no sufficient cause for the absence of a party the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction to proceed ex parte. But if sufficient cause was shown which prevented a party from appearing, the Industrial Tribunal had the power to set aside the ex parte award. The power to proceed ex parte. carried with it the power to enquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing. 5 . Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules deals with cases where the appellant has defaulted. Rule 21 empowers CEGAT to hear appeals ex parte. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere being no express provision to that effect does not inhibit the Tribunal in any manner to recall the said judgment. In view of above, I am of the view that learned Tribunal has failed to consider the complete judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/S Ram Sewak Coal Depot (Supra). It appears that learned Tribunal has considered only the answer to the first question but has not considered the answer to the second question while deciding the application of the revisionist. Therefore, I am of the view that the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in Misc Application No.4 of 2017 is not sustainable and liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in Misc Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
