Notice of hearing is mandatory when no judicial order fixes a new date after the scheduled Bench does not sit.

Rule 18(1) requires the Tribunal to notify parties of the date and place of hearing. Dispensing with individual adjournment notices through uploaded judicial orders applies only where an order discloses the adjourned date. Where no two-member Bench sat on the scheduled date and no judicial order fixed or uploaded a later date, the non-sitting does not amount to an adjournment under Rule 24. A party is entitled to fresh notice of the next hearing date and need not ascertain it from weekly cause lists. An ex parte order made in these circumstances is without due opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal could be decided ex parte on a date for which the appellant received no notice after the previously fixed hearing date could not be held because no two-member Bench sat.

Analysis: Rule 18(1) required the Tribunal to notify the parties of the date and place of hearing. The dispensation of individual adjournment notices under Public Notice No. 3/2019 operated through uploading judicial orders that disclosed the adjourned date. No two-member Bench sat on the scheduled date, no judicial order was passed or uploaded fixing the later hearing date, and the non-sitting could not constitute an adjournment under Rule 24. The appellant was therefore entitled to fresh notice of the next hearing date; requiring it to discover that date from weekly cause lists imposed an unsupported degree of diligence.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; the ex parte order was made without due opportunity of hearing.

---