Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall and set aside an ex parte order and whether rejection of the recall application was sustainable.
Analysis: The Tribunal rejected the recall application by treating the matter as one governed only by Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The judgment relied on prior authority holding that, apart from rectification under Section 22, the appellate tribunal possesses ancillary and incidental powers to set aside an ex parte order and rehear the matter. The reasoning rested on the principle that where a party was unable to appear for sufficient cause, an order passed without hearing that party may be recalled in order to secure a fair adjudication and the ends of justice. The earlier decision was read as affirming that the tribunal is not denuded of power merely because no express recall provision is found in the statute.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall the ex parte order. The rejection of the recall application was unsustainable and was set aside, with a direction to reconsider the application afresh.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal empowered to decide an appeal carries ancillary and incidental power to set aside its ex parte order and rehear the matter where sufficient cause prevented appearance, even in the absence of an express statutory provision for recall.