1960 (2) TMI 38 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Summary rejection of appeal by Assistant Collector of Sales Tax
2. Application for adjournment by applicants
3. Correctness of order by Additional Collector

Analysis:
1. The revisional application challenged the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax's order summarily rejecting the appeal filed by the applicants. The Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal as the applicants failed to attend the office to prove their contentions. The legal question was whether the Assistant Collector was within his rights to dismiss the appeal. Rule 40 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, provides for the procedure in such cases. The rule allows the authority to dismiss the appeal if the appellant does not appear before the authority, as in this case. The Assistant Collector chose to dismiss the appeal instead of deciding it ex parte, exercising his discretion under the rule. The applicants were given multiple opportunities to present their case, but their failure to attend led to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The applicants sought adjournments on various dates, citing reasons like the unavailability of their sales tax practitioner. The Assistant Collector granted adjournments initially but eventually rejected the appeal due to the applicants' non-attendance. The applicants' representative was out of station, attending a marriage ceremony in Amritsar, which led to their absence on the final adjourned date. The Additional Collector upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for parties to show diligence in pursuing their remedies. The Additional Collector found the reason for adjournment insufficient and agreed with the Assistant Collector's decision to dismiss the appeal.

3. The Additional Collector's order was challenged on the grounds that the Assistant Collector should have given a further adjournment. However, the court upheld the decisions of both the Assistant Collector and the Additional Collector. The court emphasized that adjournments should not be granted as a matter of routine and must have valid reasons. In this case, the absence of the consultant on the adjourned date was not considered a sufficient reason for further adjournment. Therefore, the court found no reason to interfere with the orders made by the appellate authorities and dismissed the application.

In conclusion, the court upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the Assistant Collector and the decision of the Additional Collector, emphasizing the importance of diligence in pursuing legal remedies and the discretion of authorities in granting adjournments.