Ex parte assessment recall: court found proceeding without the assessing officer was unreasonable and set aside the refusal to reopen.

Ex parte assessment orders were set aside because the assessing officer was not available when the dealer appeared for hearing, and the order sheet supported that absence. In those circumstances, proceeding ex parte after the dealer had waited and left was not a reasonable exercise of discretion. A fresh notice of hearing should have been issued, and the power to recall the ex parte assessment could validly be exercised. The orders rejecting the dealer's recall applications were therefore not legally sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte assessment orders were liable to be recalled and the dealer's applications for setting aside those orders were wrongly rejected.

Analysis: The dealer had been summoned for attendance at 10 a.m., but the assessing officer was not available in the office until about 2 p.m. The order sheet also supported the contention that the officer was not present when the matter was taken up. In such circumstances, proceeding ex parte against the dealer, who had left after waiting, was not a reasonable exercise of discretion. A fresh notice of hearing ought to have been issued, and the powers to recall the ex parte assessment could validly be exercised.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment orders were liable to be set aside and the orders rejecting the recall applications were not legally sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

---