Appeal dismissed ex parte for non-receipt of hearing notice; Tribunal recalls order and restores appeal The appeal by M/s. Bhor Industries was dismissed ex parte due to alleged non-receipt of hearing notice following a change of address. The Tribunal found ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal dismissed ex parte for non-receipt of hearing notice; Tribunal recalls order and restores appeal
The appeal by M/s. Bhor Industries was dismissed ex parte due to alleged non-receipt of hearing notice following a change of address. The Tribunal found that the appellants had informed the registry of the new address, which was not updated, leading to the missed hearing. Considering this, the Tribunal recalled the ex parte order and restored the appeal, allowing the appellants a fair chance to present their case.
Issues: 1. Appeal dismissed ex parte without hearing the appellants. 2. Allegation of not receiving notice of hearing due to change of address. 3. Challenge for restoration of appeal due to defaults in appearing before the adjudicating authority. 4. Failure to receive notice at the new address communicated to the registry. 5. Decision on recalling the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.
Analysis:
1. The applicant, M/s. Bhor Industries, filed a Miscellaneous Application against the ex parte dismissal of their appeal by the Tribunal. They claimed that they were not informed about the dismissal and only found out through a bank communication regarding encashment of a Bank Guarantee. They alleged not receiving the notice of hearing due to a change of address, leading to the ex parte order.
2. During the hearing of the Miscellaneous Application, it was revealed that the notice for hearing and the Tribunal's order were sent to the appellant's old address in Borivali, despite the appellants having communicated a new address to the registry in a letter dated 20-9-2002. The registry had no record of this communication, which resulted in the appellants missing the hearing on 26-5-2003.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the events and the communication of the new address by the appellants, concluded that the appellants were not solely responsible for their absence during the hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to recall the ex parte order dated 12-6-2003 and restore the appeal to its original position.
4. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the order dated 12-6-2003 and directed the registry to list the appeal for regular hearing promptly. The miscellaneous applications filed by the appellants were allowed, and the appeal was restored to its original position, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
