SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(All) 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
C. S. P. Singh and R. R. Rastogi, JJ.
M.P.PODDAR, COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL JUDGE (REVISIONS), SALES TAX - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition 471 Of 1975
Decided On : 11/04/1981

The revising authority has inherent power to set aside an ex parte order.

Headnote:

SALES TAX - RESTORATION OF EX PARTE ORDER - JURISDICTION OF REVISING AUTHORITY - INHERENT POWER TO SET ASIDE EX PARTE ORDER - DELAY IN MOVING RESTORATION APPLICATION - EXCUSABLE DELAY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee filed four revisions before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur. The revisions were listed for hearing on 22nd February, 1973. The assessee's pairokar went to the court at 10 A.M. and found that the presiding officer was not sitting in the court. He then went to civil courts in connection with some other case, and came back again at 2 P.M. when he was told that the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, had left the court after finishing court work for that day. The assessee's pairokar went to the court of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, on the next day, i.e., 23rd February, 1973, along with a letter of the counsel for the assessee to the effect that he could not attend the court on 22nd February, 1973, as he was ill. This letter was not entertained. Thereafter he sent an application on 26th February, 1973, which was received in the office of the revising authority on 28th February, 1973. A prayer was made in this application that the petitioner be heard. The petitioner was not informed of the order passed on this application. On receiving the ex parte order of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, on 16th March, 1973, he filed a restoration application on 10th April, 1973. The Judge (Revisions) dismissed this application on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no justification for the assessee for waiting till 10th April, 1973, for moving the restoration application, and secondly, that there was no specific provision in the Act for setting aside the ex parte order.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the revising authority erred in both the counts. Firstly, there was no delay in moving the restoration application as an application had already been moved on 26th February, 1973, and was received on 28th February, 1973, on the date when the case was being disposed of. Secondly, the revising authority had jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order as there was a unanimous weight of judicial authority that he enjoyed such a jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the revising authority had jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order? 2. Whether there was delay in moving the restoration application?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the revising authority had jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order as there was a unanimous weight of judicial authority that he enjoyed such a jurisdiction. The court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts which held that the Tribunal or the revising authority has inherent power to set aside an ex parte order. 2. The court held that there was no delay in moving the restoration application as an application had already been moved on 26th February, 1973, and was received on 28th February, 1973, on the date when the case was being disposed of.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed with costs. The revising authority was directed to dispose of the restoration application on merits in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made above.

C. S. P. SINGH, J.


( 1 ) THE assessee, who is the-petitioner here, had filed four revisions before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur. These revisions were listed for hearing on 22nd February, 1973. The applicants case is that its pairokar went to the court at 10 A. M. and found that the presiding officer was not sitting in the court. He then went to civil courts in connection with some other case, and came back again at 2 P. M. when he was told that the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, had left the court after finishing court work for that day. It is averred that the pairokar of the assessee went to the court of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, on the next day, i. e. , 23rd February, 1973, along with a letter of the counsel for the assessee to the effect that he could not attend the court on 22nd February, 1973, as he was ill. This letter was not entertained. Thereafter he sent an application on 26th February, 1973, which was received in the office of the revising authority on 28th February, 1973. A prayer was made in this application that the petitioner be heard. The petitioner was not informed of the order passed on this application. On receiving the ex parte order of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, on 16th March, 1973, he filed a restoration application on 10th April, 1973. The Judge (Revisions)has dismissed this application on two grounds. In the first place he has taken the view that there was no justification for the assessee for waiting till 10th April, 1973, for moving the restoration application, and further that there was no specific provisions in the Act for setting aside the ex parte order. We are of the view that the revising authority is in error on both the counts.

( 2 ) WE have already adverted to the fact that the petitioner had moved an application on 26th february, 1973, for setting aside the ex parte order. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the department, it has been admitted in para 7 that such application was received in the office on 28th February, 1973. It is, however, stated that the report of the Reader dated 2nd March, 1973, regarding this application was placed before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, on 5th march, 1973, whereupon the Additional Judge (Revisions) directed it to be filed, inasmuch as the revisions had been disposed of on 28th February, 1973. The revising authority has not referred to this application at all. There was no delay in making this application, and in fact the application had reached the office of the revising authority on 28th February, 1973, on which date the judgment was given. The office of the revising authority should have put up this application before the revising authority on the same date, and should not have withheld this application, as the case was being disposed of on that date, and all pending applications in the case should have been put up before the Presiding Officer for disposal. Inasmuch as an application had already been moved on 26th February, 1973, and was received on 28th February, 1973, on the date when the case was being disposed of, there was no delay on the part of the assessee in moving the restoration application. There also does not appear any delay on the part of the assessee in moving the second application as it was moved within a month of the assessee having received the copy of the order of the revising authority. It is, however, not necessary to consider the delay or haste in moving, the second application for restoration, as there was already a pending application for restoration of the case on the date when the judgment was delivered. It was thus erroneous on the part of the revising authority to have held that there was delay on the part of the assessee in moving the restoration application, and further that it was inexcusable.


( 3 ) COMING now to the question as to whether the revising authority had jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order. The unanimous








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top