Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application for restoration of a revision petition dismissed for default can be filed after any length of time merely because the relevant proviso uses the word "afterwards", and whether the Tribunal could refuse restoration on the ground that the application was not made within a reasonable period.
Analysis: The proviso to regulation 12 of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal Regulations, 1974 permits restoration where the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the matter was called on for hearing. The expression "afterwards" does not confer an unrestricted right to move restoration at any time. In the absence of a prescribed time-limit, the application must be presented within a reasonable period having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal was therefore entitled to examine not only sufficient cause for non-appearance, but also whether the restoration petition itself had been filed within a reasonable time. The applicant failed to satisfy that burden.
Conclusion: The refusal to restore the revision petition was justified, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural provision permits restoration "afterwards" but prescribes no specific limitation period, the application must still be made within a reasonable time, and the Tribunal may restoration if that requirement is not met.