TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee are that the Order, dated 22/07/2025, allowing the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue was passed without issuance of any notice to the Assessee. It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that in Paragraph 3 of the said Order, dated 22/07/2025, the Tribunal has recorded that none appeared on behalf of the Assessee inspite of notice even though no notice was actually issued to the Assessee. The aforesaid submission was opposed by Ld. Departmental Representative. Therefore, report was sought from Registry in this regard. After verifying the record, the Registry reported - "on scrutiny, it was found that Memorandum of Miscellaneous Application was inadvertently sent to the Appellant instead of the Respondent". Perusal of the service report on record shows that the same pertained to the aforesaid notice issued by the registry to the Revenue. Thus, the averment made by the Assessee that notice of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue was not issued to the Assessee is factually correct. 5. It is settled legal position that order passed under Section 254(1) can be rectified in an application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act. Section 254(2) has no ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on review. The expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Narshi Thakershi's case held that no review lies on merits unless a status specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal." (Emphasis Supplied) 8. In the case of SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Tuff Drilling (P.) Ltd. [2018] 11 SCC 470 the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguished between a procedural review and a review on merit by an Arbitral Tribunal under the provisions Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 holding as under: "22. Learned amicus curiae has referred to judgment of this Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., (2005) 13 SCC 777, this Court again held that a quasi-judicial authority is vested with the power to invoke procedural review. In Paragraph 19 of the judgment, following was laid down:- "19. Applying these principles it is apparent that where a court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the court or the quasi-judicial authority is vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. The procedural review belongs to a different category. In such a review, the court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate proceeds to do so, but in doing so commits (sic ascertains whether it has committed) a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and consequently the order passed therein. Cases where a decision is rendered by the court or quasi-judicial authority without notice to the opposite party or under a mistaken impression that the notice had been served upon the opposite party, or where a matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a date other than the date fixed for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the aforesaid judgment is set out hereinunder: "15. From a reading of Rule 24 as extracted above, it is seen that Tribunal is vested with the power to recall an ex-parte order. Requirement of the proviso is that Tribunal must be satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the appellant. No time limit is prescribed in Rule 24. 16. On a conjoint reading of the two provisions, there appears to be no contradiction between section 254(2) of the Act and Rule 24 of the Rules as extracted above. Both the provisions can be and should be read harmoniously to advance the objective that a decision on merit should be avoided in the absence of the aggrieved litigant. It is an established principle of natural justice that a litigant should be heard before a decision is taken. 17. In Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (supra) Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 1980 Supp SCC 420 and Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spg & Weg Mills Ltd. [2005] 13 SCC 777 and distinguished between a procedural review and a review on merit. Supreme Court held that a Tribu....