Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. As prayed by counsel for both parties the revision is being disposed of finally.
(2.) This revision has been filed against the order dated January 20, 2003 passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-V, Varanasi.
(3.) Facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are assessment order dated March 28, 1989 was passed by Sales Tax Officer-1, Mirzapur. Appeal was filed by the revisionist against the assessment order which was partly allowed by the order dated July 31, 1989 reducing the tax liability up to the extent of Rs. 1,03,800. Second Appeal No. 99 of 1990 (Assessment Year 1984-85) and second appeal No. 127 of 1990 (Assessment Year 1984-85) was filed by the assessee before the Trade Tax Tribunal. February 2, 2002 was the date fixed in the second appeal which date was noted by counsel for appellant, but no one appeared on February 2, 2002 at the time of hearing. The second appellate authority by the order dated February 5, 2002 dismissed appeal No. 99 of 1990 and allowed the Appeal No. 127 of 1990 by enhancing the tax liability of Rs. 1,03,800. The assessee filed an application on March 6, 2002 under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for rectification of the ex parte order praying for opportunity of hearing. The application was supported by affidavit of counsel for the applicant. It was stated in the affidavit that although the counsel for the applicant noted the date February 2, 2002 but he fell ill on January 30, 2002 and was unable to move upto February 6, 2002 due to which neither he could inform the assessee nor could appear on the date of hearing. It was stated in the affidavit that ex parte order be rectified under Section 22 and opportunity of hearing be given. The Trade Tax Tribunal noted the contents of the application but rejected the application on the ground that no clear mistake in the order dated February 5, 2002 has been pointed out which required rectification, hence the application is rejected. This revision has boon filed challenging the aforesaid order dated January 20, 2003.;