Adjournment intimation by post not mandatory absent statute; party must track proceedings after seeking adjournment.

In the absence of any statutory mandate, a litigant who seeks adjournment must keep track of the proceedings and cannot invalidate an order merely because the next hearing date was not intimated by post. Once notice of the case had been served and appearance entered, the assessee was expected to follow the matter after seeking adjournment. The High Court found the assessee negligent in prosecuting the matter and declined interference with the Tribunal's order; the revision was dismissed, though liberty was left to seek recall of the ex parte order if otherwise permissible in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was bound to intimate the next hearing date by post after granting an adjournment on an application sent by post, and whether the revision deserved interference on that ground.

Analysis: The assessee could point to no statutory provision making it obligatory for the Tribunal to send intimation of every adjourned date by post. Once notice of the proceedings had been served and the assessee had entered appearance, it remained for the assessee to follow the case and ascertain the next date after seeking adjournment. The Court found the assessee negligent in pursuing the matter and held that no good ground was shown to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The contention that the Tribunal was required to send the next date by post was rejected, and the revision was dismissed in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal was left undisturbed, while the assessee was left at liberty to seek recall of the ex parte order if otherwise permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any statutory mandate, a litigant who seeks adjournment must keep track of the proceedings and cannot claim invalidity of the order merely because the next date was not intimated by post.

---