2008 (8) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... industrial unit for the manufacture of PVC pipe at Delhi Road, Moradabad. The exemption from payment of tax for a period of four years from July 16, 1987 the date of first sale, to July 15, 1991 was granted. Subsequent thereto, the Department came in possession of certain material to show that the applicant is not actually manufacturing any goods, but is a trader and as such, is unauthorisedly utilising the facility of total exemption from tax. The Commissioner of Trade Tax in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 4A(3) of the Act issued a show-cause notice. The applicant failed to appear inspite of the notice before the Commissioner. The eligibility certificate was cancelled ex parte. The said order was challenged in appeal be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, therefore, by the order dated March 31, 1998 cancelled the eligibility certificate of the applicant. The above order was again challenged before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in second appeal No. 56 of 1998 which came up for consideration before a three-member Bench. This time the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground that no error was committed by the Commissioner in refusing to adjourn the case. The Tribunal has also observed that the Commissioner has given the facts in detail, but no attempt was made before it by the dealer-applicant to controvert those facts with the help of account books or otherwise. The said order of the Tribunal is under challenge in the present revision. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the proceedings on the merits. Rather, he was interested to prolong the proceedings for the reasons best known to him. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and non-cooperating attitude of the dealer-applicant, I find no illegality or perversity in either of the two orders of the authorities below rejecting the adjournment application and deciding the matter ex parte against the applicant. The Tribunal is right in its observation that the allegation that on the date the counsel of the dealer was busy in other time barring cases has not been substantiated by giving particulars, if any, of such cases. The copy of the adjournment application was not produced before the Tribunal and also not before this cour....