TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25, MP-PBPT-918/CHN/2025 (Recall) dated 03.02.2025 and MP-PBPT-1286/CHN/2025 (Recall) dated 18.03.2025 have been filed by the Respondent/ Applicant M/s SRS Mining under Section 40 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (PBPTA) seeking Recall of the Orders dated 03.07.2024, 14.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 passed by this Tribunal. The Applicant has also filed an Application for taking certain additional documents on record. 2. The present matter arises out of the Appeal No. FPA-PBPT- 191/CHN/2018 filed by the Department against the Order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority whereby the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27.09.2017 was not confirmed. During the course of the Appellate proceedings, the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in the case of J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8305 of 2021] by its Order dated 05.05.2022, quashed the ECR CEZO 19/2016 including the Complaint bearing No. 2 of 2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the grounds as the "detailed order of acceptance of the closure report of the scheduled offence in RC MA1 2016 A0040 and the quashment of two FIRs by the High Court of the scheduled offence and of the letter dated 16.05.2019 of IT Department and also the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority in the order dated 25.02.2019, the evidence of continuation of offence in ECR CEZO 19/2016 is not sufficient." The previous Counsel for the Applicant failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilable thereafter, the Applicant failed to participate in the proceedings. Moreover, the Applicant Firm M/s SRS Mining consisted of three partners, yet none of the other partners appeared before this Tribunal despite claiming rights over the attached property. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Non-Applicant further argued that the Applicant was well aware of the Judgment dated 05.05.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8305 of 2021], yet failed to place it on record till moving the Application on 19.02.2025 after the Appeal of the Department was disposed of by the Tribunal on 30.01.2025. Since, the Non- Applicant was not a party to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant also drew attention to the Judgment dated 05.05.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement which he claimed would have direct bearing on the proceedings. 10. The Non-Applicant vehemently opposed the recall applications and asserted that multiple opportunities had been duly afforded to the Applicant. However, the Applicant remained negligent, particularly in the light of the facts, that other partners were available and could have assumed the responsibility of managing the matter. Moreover, no error apparent on the face of record exists to justify interference at this stage. The Non-Applicant concluded by stating that no sufficient cause was established ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is proceeded against exparte, with liberty to join proceedings. On request, list the appeal for final hearing on 16th October, 2024. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order is hereby stayed. Copy of this order is given by hand, if so desired." 16.10.2024 "The appeal is listed for final hearing but due to the absence of the Main Counsel for the appellant the same could not be taken up. Four weeks adjournment is sought. The same is considered and allowed as a last chance. On request, list the appeal for final hearing on 14^th January, 2025." 14.01.2025 "Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued at length in the appeal. In spite of having granted number of opportunities, none wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the Applicant has also emphasised on the inherent power of this Tribunal to review as well as recall its Orders. In this regard, he cited Section 40(2)(h) of the PBPTA. The said provisions stipulate that the Appellate Tribunal shall have the power to set aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by its ex-parte. We do agree that the Tribunal enjoys the inherent power to either review or recall its orders. The principles underlying the recall and the review of an Order require interference with the said Order only if sufficient cause for non- appearance is established in the case of recall and error apparent on the face of the record is clearly established in the case of review. The Judgmen....