Appellate discretion on non-appearance upheld where repeated adjournments were already granted and no adequate cause was shown.

Under rule 40 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, the appellate authority may dismiss an appeal or decide it ex parte when the appellant does not appear on the fixed or adjourned date. The Court held that this discretion will not be interfered with where multiple opportunities were already given and no adequate cause for a further adjournment is shown. It stressed that litigants must prosecute remedies diligently and that adjournments are not to be granted as a matter of course. The dismissal of the appeal was therefore upheld and no further adjournment was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal when the appellant failed to appear on the adjourned date and whether a further adjournment was required.

Analysis: After an appeal is admitted, summary rejection is not the proper course; the governing provision is rule 40 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, which permits the authority, on the appellant's non-appearance on the fixed or adjourned date, either to dismiss the appeal or to decide it ex parte. The authority had already granted more than one opportunity, and the reasons advanced for yet another adjournment were found insufficient. The Court emphasised that parties must prosecute their remedies diligently and that adjournments are not to be granted as a matter of course.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal was upheld and no further adjournment was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed because the appellate authority acted within the discretion conferred by the procedural rules in declining further adjournment and dismissing the appeal for non-appearance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable procedural rule gives the appellate authority a choice to dismiss an appeal or decide it ex parte on the appellant's non-appearance, the exercise of that discretion will not be interfered with if sufficient opportunities were already afforded and no adequate cause for adjournment is shown.

---