INDIAN STEEL WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two S.T.R. Nos. 1705 of 1990 and 1706 of 1990 filed by the assessee against the order of Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, dated October 11, 1995, by which, two applications for recalling the earlier orders dated April 21, 1990 relating to the assessment year 1983-84 and the order dated April 30, 1990 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 have been dismissed.

(2.) Vide order dated April 21, 1990 the Tribunal has decided the appeal of the applicant ex parte for the assessment year 1983-84 and vide order dated April 30, 1990, the Tribunal had decided the appeal ex parte relating to the assessment year 1984-85. Appeal No. 18/1987 filed by the applicant for the assessment year 1983-84 and Appeal No. 22/1987 filed by the applicant for the assessment year 1984-85 were fixed for hearing on April 6, 1990 before the Tribunal. It appears that no one appeared on behalf of assessee and therefore, ex parte orders have been passed. To recall the ex parte orders, two applications have been filed before the Tribunal. In the application, it was contended that the notices of hearing were served on Sri Pravin Kumar Chopra, partner of the firm. It was contended that Sri Pravin Kumar Chopra was not looking after the cases and was not aware about the proceedings and in as much as, he had gone out of station on March 22, 1990 and had fallen ill there and in the circumstances, he could not inform the other partner about the date of hearing. A medical certificate and an affidavit was filed. I have heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel. The Tribunal vide order dated October 11, 1990, rejected the aforesaid two applications and against the said orders, the present revisions have been filed.

(3.) I have heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel. The order of Tribunal shows that it has not been disputed that Sri Pravin Kumar Chopra was not doing the privy of the case and ever appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not disputed the averment made in the application and in the affidavit. The Tribunal has proceeded that on the earlier occasion, adjournment was granted and record does not show who was actual partner of the firm dealing with the assessment case.