9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (2) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period between 1st April, 1955, and 31st March, 1956. The appeal was admitted and this is not in dispute. It was fixed for hearing on 31st July, 1958. On that date the applicants attended, but it appears that the papers of the case were not available so that the applicants did all that they could do in the circumstances by attending on the date of hearing before the appellate authority. The case then stood adjourned to 10th September, 1958. On this date the applicants also attended, but they applied for an adjournment on the ground that their sales tax practitioner was not available. The adjournment was granted and the case stood adjourned to 13th October, 1958. On this date the applicants did not attend but a manager of the firm sent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the point still remains whether the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax was within his rights in dismissing the appeal, and this raises the application of rule 40 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954. Rule 40(1) provides for fixing a date for hearing the appellant or applicant or his agent or a legal practitioner. Rule 40(2) provides for adjourning the hearing of an appeal or application to another date, and rule 40(3) provides that if on the date fixed for hearing or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned the appellant or applicant does not appear before the said authority either in person or through an agent or a legal practitioner the said authority may dismiss the appeal or application for revision or decide it e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded that the applicants were not willing to take advantage of the opportunities afforded. The letter written by the manager does not even mention the name of the person concerned nor the date since when he was out of the station. This is not to suggest that the concerned man had no good reason to be in Amritsar because the letter shows that he went there to attend a marriage, but the point remains that on this adjourned date, viz., 13th October, 1958, it would have been possible for the applicants to assist the Assistant Collector in the disposal of the case. This the applicants failed to do, and if the Assistant Collector considered that the applicants were not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them to prove their conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
