TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner and the State of Orissa were sent to the petitioner at his address at Sambalpur fixing the date of hearing to April 24, 2000. The case of the petitioner is that the business of the petitioner at Sambalpur was closed and the petitioner was at Bhubaneswar when the said notice was sent to his address at Sambalpur and his father received the same and sent the same to the petitioner at Bhubaneswar, but by the time the petitioner received the notice, the hearing of the appeals were over. Consequently, when the two appeals were heard on April 26, 2000 the representative of State was present, but the appellant was not present before the Tribunal. By order dated May 23, 2000 the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the State, but dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be adjourned the respondent ....... does not appear either in person or by his agent when the appeal ......... is called for hearing, the Tribunal may decide the same on merits after hearing the appellant .......... or his agent, if present. It will be clear from a plain reading of the said sub-rule (1) of rule 60 that if on a date fixed for hearing the appellant does not appear either in person or by his agent when the appeal is called for hearing, the Tribunal may decide it on its own merits after hearing the respondent or his agent, if present. Thus, if the petitioner did not appear either in person or through his agent when his Second Appeals Nos. 626 and 627 of 1992-93 were called out for hearing, the Tribunal should have decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only has held that as regards suppression, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax after detailed scrutiny of all relevant materials and books of account came to a clear finding that the suppression has been committed and there is no overriding evidence in the Tribunal to find fault in the inference and confirmations of the enhancement. In our view, the order of the Tribunal in paragraph 4 is mechanical and cryptic in nature and cannot be held to be a consideration of the appeals of the petitioner against the enhancement of gross turnover and taxable turnover by Rs. 8,49,832.96 on merits. On account of the aforesaid enhancement of gross turnover and taxable turnover the petitioner is stated to have suffered Orissa sales tax of Rs. 1,87,828 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
