HARISH CHANDRA SINGH Vs. PASSENGER TAX OFFICER VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By means; of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-2-1992 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte assessment order

(2.) WE have heard Sri A. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, who represents all the respondents. Since there is no private party and with the consent of the counsel for the parties and also as provided under the second proviso to rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the rules of the court, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(3.) IT would not be out of place t? refer to certain facts of the case of Shyam Behari Tewari (supra). In title said case an ex parte order of assessment was passed by the Goods Tax Officer which was sought to be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of this court declined to Interfere in the said case on the ground of alternative remedy as the ex parte order passed by the Goods Tax Officer was appeallable order under section 18 (2) (b) of the U. P. Motor Gadi (Mai Kar) Adhiniyam, 1964. However, the question which arose for consideration in the said case was, whether inspite of the fact that there being no provision for malting an application for setting aside the ex parte order under the Act and whether an application wis maintainable and the authorities had jurisdiction to re hear the matter. Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank v Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, AIR. 1981 SC 606, in which it was held that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was maintainable inspite of the fact that there was no such provision under the Act. Laying down the aforesaid law the reliance was placed on the following observations made in the case of Grindlays Bank by the Supreme Court :