MURLIDHAR TAKANDAS SAINANI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by Shri D. M. Dharmadhikari. He is heard.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no case for interference with the order of assessment has been made out. The petitioner was afforded many opportunities by the Sales Tax Officer to substantiate his case, but he did not avail of them. The second appeal also was dismissed in default of prosecution. Subsequently, an application was made for restoration on the ground that the petitioner's counsel had gone out on the date fixed and since an application had been made for adjournment of the case, the appeal did not deserve to be dismissed in the absence of the petitioner. The restoration application was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the petitioner had been negligent in prosecuting the appeal. It was also pointed out that the counsel, who is said to have gone out on the date fixed for hearing, was not a counsel appearing in the case inasmuch as he had not filed his power. On the other hand, another counsel was appearing for the petitioner. The Board of Revenue has pointed out that the petitioner had not given any reasons as to why nobody on his behalf appeared on the date fixed. Whether or not sufficient cause had been made out for non-appearance of the petitioner on the date fixed in the second appeal is a question of fact and we do not find any such error in the order of the Board of Revenue in this behalf which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently the stay application also stands rejected.