TMI Blog1974 (5) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no service at all on the assessee, ex parte revisional order could not be passed. The particular notice alleged to have been taken by the assessee has been produced and I am surprised how it was interpreted on the basis of the endorsement made that the assessee had been served. The report clearly shows that the proprietor did not receive it. No service by affixation was made. I am thus satisfied that the order passed should not be allowed to sustain." The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, relied upon the case of Sri Bhagwan Radha Kishan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.[1952] 22 I.T.R. 104., in support of the proposition that there was inherent jurisdiction in the Tribunal to set aside the order of dismissal for default when it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsence of the assessee. In relation to inherent powers possessed by the Tribunal having the function of deciding disputes judicially, a Division Bench of this Court in Debi Prasad v. Sri Khelawan1956 A.L.J. 13., laid down the law as follows: "As regards the inherent power of courts of law to modify or set aside their orders, the law may be stated thus: As a general rule no court or judge has power to rehear, review, alter or vary any judgment or order after it has been entered or drawn up respectively: see Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham Edition), Volume 19, page 260; see Order 20, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Drew v. Wills, Ex parte Martin[1891] 1 Q.B.D. 450., it was stated by Lord Esher, M.R.: 'No court has such a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bolivier[1916] 2 A.C. 203.; Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham Edition), Volume 19, page 263. 4.. If an order has been signed by inadvertence or failure of memory when it was intended that it should not be signed at the stage, the court or judge may recall the order: Jai Karan v. Panchaiti Akhara A.I.R. 1933 All. 49. 5.. Where a decree has been passed against a dead person, the order may be vacated and the case reheard: Debi Bux Singh v. Habibi Shah[1913] I.L.R. 35 All. 331. The same rule applies to an order passed against a company which has already been dissolved or which was non-existent: Lazard Brothers Co. v. Barque Industrialle de Moscow[1932] 1 K.B. 617 (624); S.C. on 6.. A court has larger power of modifying or setting asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
