1974 (5) TMI 102 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessee's Win: Valid Notice Key in Setting Aside Ex Parte Order

Shalimar Furnishers Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh

The judgment favored the assessee by upholding the decision to set aside the ex parte revisional order due to lack of valid notice service. It emphasized ... - Issues:1. Validity of setting aside an ex parte revisional order due to lack of notice service.2. Jurisdiction of the revising authority to rectify mistakes apparent on the record.3. Inherent powers of the Tribunal to set aside orders made without proper notice.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to a revision filed by an assessee against an appellate order where the assessee was absent during the hearing. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, initially dismissed the revision due to the absence of the assessee. However, upon the assessee's application citing lack of service of notice, it was found that the notice was not validly served, leading to the setting aside of the revisional order. The Judge relied on the case law to support the inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders due to lack of proper service of notice.2. The revising authority's jurisdiction to rectify mistakes apparent on the record was a crucial aspect of the judgment. Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act allows authorities to rectify any mistake within three years of the order. In this case, the revising authority found the report of service on the assessee to be erroneous, constituting a mistake apparent on the record. Therefore, the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, had the jurisdiction to rectify this mistake by setting aside the revisional order.3. The judgment delved into the inherent powers of the Tribunal to set aside orders made without proper notice to a party who has the right to be heard. Citing relevant case law, the judgment highlighted that courts have the inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders made without notice to a party. In this case, since the finding was that the notice was not validly served on the assessee, the Judge (Revisions) was deemed to have inherent jurisdiction to set aside the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring parties have the right to be heard before orders are passed.In conclusion, the judgment answered the question of law in favor of the assessee, affirming the authority's decision to set aside the ex parte revisional order due to lack of valid notice service. The judgment underscored the significance of rectifying mistakes apparent on the record and the inherent powers of the Tribunal to ensure parties are given the opportunity to be heard before decisions are made.