Dismissal for default upheld where no justifiable explanation was shown for non-appearance before the appellate forum.

Where a party, despite notice, fails to appear before the appellate forum and offers no justifiable explanation, dismissal of the appeal for default will not be interfered with. The Tribunal had restored the second appeals after an earlier recall, but on the next date neither the assessee nor counsel appeared and no adjournment application was filed. The record disclosed no acceptable explanation for the absence, and one appeal also concerned rejection under section 30 of the Trade Tax Act for non-deposit of the requisite amount, which the Tribunal had found lawful. The challenge to the dismissal order therefore failed and the dismissal for non-appearance was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the second appeals for non-appearance and whether there was any ground to interfere with that dismissal.

Analysis: The appeals had earlier been restored after recall of the dismissal order, but on the next date fixed neither the assessee nor counsel appeared and no adjournment application was filed. The record also showed no justifiable explanation for the absence. The Court noted that one appeal concerned rejection under section 30 of the Trade Tax Act for non-deposit of the requisite amount, and the Tribunal had already found no illegality in that rejection. In the absence of any acceptable reason for non-appearance before the Tribunal, the challenge to the dismissal order could not succeed.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals for default was upheld and interference was refused.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeals for non-appearance was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party, despite notice, fails to appear before the appellate forum and offers no justifiable explanation, the Court will not interfere with dismissal of the appeal for default.

---