Restoration applications must address non-appearance and illness explanations before rejection, with remand ordered for fresh hearing.

An order rejecting a restoration or recall application must specifically address the assessee's explanation for non-appearance, including any plea of illness, before deciding the matter. Here, the Tribunal declined the application without returning a clear finding on the absence and illness explanation and without a proper fresh examination on merits. That deficiency in consideration rendered the order unsustainable, so the matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with law after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under Section 22 without returning a specific finding on the assessee's non-appearance and claim of illness, and whether the matter required reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The revisions arose from orders passed under Section 58(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Tribunal had rejected the application under Section 22, but the order did not record any specific finding on the assessee's stated illness and absence on the date fixed. The order also showed that the Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter without adequately addressing the explanation for non-appearance and without a fresh examination of the claim on merits. In these circumstances, the deficiency in consideration warranted interference.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was not sustainable and the matter required remand for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh, reasoned decision.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting a restoration or recall application must deal specifically with the explanation for non-appearance and, where such explanation is not properly adjudicated, the matter may be remanded for fresh decision after hearing the affected party.

---