Quasi-judicial power to impose adjournment costs recognised, but the discretion failed on the facts and the order was set aside.

A quasi-judicial authority exercising jurisdiction under section 49 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 may impose reasonable adjournment costs as an incidental and ancillary power needed to make adjudication effective, discourage unjustified adjournments, and prevent abuse of process. That power must be exercised fairly, with reason and balance, and not arbitrarily. On the facts, the adjournment was sought because counsel was indisposed and earlier adjournments were not at the taxpayer's instance, so the costs order was found unjustified and unsustainable in judicial review. The impugned order was set aside, although the existence of the power itself was recognised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax had jurisdiction to impose adjournment costs while adjourning a hearing under section 49 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975; (ii) Whether the adjournment cost imposed in the facts of the case was validly exercised.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax had jurisdiction to impose adjournment costs while adjourning a hearing under section 49 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under section 49 was treated as quasi-judicial in nature. The power to hear a disputed question necessarily carried with it the incidental and ancillary powers needed to make the adjudicatory function effective. Since adjournment may be necessary to secure a fair hearing, the authority could also impose reasonable costs to discourage unjustified adjournments, compensate inconvenience, and prevent abuse of process. The power, however, had to be exercised with reason and balance, and not arbitrarily.

Conclusion: The Commissioner of Sales Tax did have jurisdiction to impose adjournment costs.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjournment cost imposed in the facts of the case was validly exercised.

Analysis: On the facts placed before the Court, the adjournment was sought because counsel was indisposed, and the record showed that earlier adjournments were not at the instance of the petitioner. In those circumstances, the exercise of the power to impose costs was found to be unjustified. The order was therefore held to be unsustainable in judicial review.

Conclusion: The impugned order imposing adjournment costs was invalid and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The power to impose adjournment costs was recognised as incidental to quasi-judicial adjudication, but the particular order could not stand because the discretion was not properly exercised on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial authority has incidental power to impose reasonable adjournment costs as part of its jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute, but the discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and without arbitrariness.

---