Tribunal Denies Recall Request for Appeal Order, Warns Against Repetitive Applications

The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of an order and restoration of an appeal. The Bench noted it was the third application for recall, with previous rejections. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification under section 25(2) of the Act was not permissible for the situation. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it warned against repetitive applications causing disorder in the legal process. The Tribunal, while not branding the assessee as unscrupulous, highlighted the repetitive nature of the applications and denied the current Misc. Application, underscoring the consequences of filing such repetitive applications.

---

---

Issues:
- Recall of Tribunal order and restoration of appeal
- Failure to call upon counsel during appeal hearing
- Reliance on earlier Tribunal decision not cited by department
- Nature of issue before Tribunal
- Third application for recall of order
- Permissibility of rectification under relevant section
- Application of legal principles regarding repetitive applications

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recall of a Tribunal order and restoration of an appeal. The application was filed by the assessee on the grounds that during the appeal hearing, the counsel was not called upon by the Bench, and an earlier Tribunal decision was relied upon without affording an opportunity to reply. The issue before the Tribunal was the protective assessment, not related to cash credit or deposits under section 68 of the Act. The counsel argued vehemently that the order deserved to be recalled due to the failure to call him during the hearing.

Upon careful consideration, the Bench noted that this was the third application for recall, with previous applications having been rejected. The first application was rejected as the counsel was present and heard during the appeal. The subsequent applications, including the present one, were similar in content and sought rectification of the earlier order. The Tribunal highlighted that rectification under section 25(2) of the Act was not permissible for the current situation, citing a decision of the Orissa High Court.

The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision regarding the exercise of writ jurisdiction by a High Court to emphasize that repetitive applications for rectification could lead to disorder and chaos in the legal process. While refraining from labeling the assessee as unscrupulous, the Tribunal noted the repetitive nature of the applications and dismissed the current Misc. Application. The judgment serves as a lesson to the assessee about the permissibility and consequences of filing repetitive applications for recall or rectification before the Tribunal.

---