Right of hearing in commercial tax revision restored after default dismissal and rigid refusal to reinstate the matter.

Commercial tax proceedings should not be decided on an unduly technical approach where a valuable right of hearing is affected. The court found that dismissal of the revision for default, followed by rejection of the restoration request by a non-speaking order, was unsustainable because the authority and the single Judge applied strict procedural rules too rigidly. A lenient approach was required once the dismissal came to light, particularly in proceedings before commercial tax authorities. The revision was therefore restored for hearing and disposal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether dismissal of the revision for default and refusal to restore it were justified, and whether the matter should be restored for decision on merits.

Analysis: The appellant's revision had been dismissed in default when neither the appellant nor counsel appeared. The subsequent restoration application was also rejected by a non-speaking order. The appellate court held that a too technical and strict approach had been adopted by the revisional authority and the learned single Judge. It emphasised that strict rules of pleadings should not be applied rigidly in proceedings before commercial tax authorities, especially when a valuable right of hearing before an adverse assessment was denied. The court further observed that, on learning of the dismissal, the restoration request deserved a lenient approach in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The dismissal order and the refusal to restore the revision were unsustainable, and the revision was ordered to be restored for hearing and disposal on merits.

---