Court quashes order, directs review on merit. Authority erred in finding delay.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the revising authority's order, and directed the revising authority to dispose of the restoration application on merits in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the revising authority had erred in finding delay on the part of the assessee and in questioning its jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in moving the restoration application by the assessee.
2. Jurisdiction of the revising authority to set aside the ex parte order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in moving the restoration application:
The petitioner, an assessee, filed an application on 26th February, 1973, to set aside the ex parte order. The application reached the office of the revising authority on 28th February, 1973, the same date the judgment was given. The revising authority did not consider this application, claiming the revisions had been disposed of on 28th February, 1973. However, the petitioner had already moved the application before the judgment date, and there was no delay in doing so. The revising authority erred in holding that there was a delay on the part of the assessee in moving the restoration application. The petitioner also filed a restoration application on 10th April, 1973, upon receiving the ex parte order, which was dismissed by the revising authority on the grounds of delay. The court found no delay in moving the second application as well, as it was within a month of receiving the order.

2. Jurisdiction of the revising authority to set aside the ex parte order:
The revising authority contended that there were no specific provisions in the Sales Tax Act for setting aside an ex parte order. However, judicial authorities unanimously support the view that the revising authority has the jurisdiction to set aside such orders. Citing cases from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, it was established that the revising authority possesses inherent power to set aside an ex parte order. The Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court held that if an ex parte order was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the authority had the jurisdiction to set it aside. The revising authority's reliance on the absence of specific provisions in the Act was deemed inconclusive. The court emphasized that the revising authority indeed had the jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order, contrary to the revising authority's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the revising authority's order, and directed the revising authority to dispose of the restoration application on merits in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the revising authority had erred in finding delay on the part of the assessee and in questioning its jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order.

---