A. N. GUPTA, J. - (1.) Second Appeal Nos. 502/90 and 503/90 both relating to the assessment year 1988-89 (State and Central) were pending before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad. Notice for hearing was served on the learned counsel for the applicant, who was the appellant in those two appeals. The learned counsel for the applicant sought adjournment on three consecutive dates and on the fourth date fixed, none appeared before the Sales Tax Tribunal and no application for adjournment was moved. The result was that the Tribunal heard the appeals ex parte and dismissed them vide its order dated August 29, 1991. Thereafter the applicant moved an application under section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, with the prayer that the ex parte judgment be recalled and the appeals be heard on merits. In the application which was accompanied with an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant himself, it was mentioned that the learned counsel could not contact the applicant because the firm had closed and he was not able to locate its partners and sought one adjournment after another. On the fourth adjourned date, i. e. , August 20, 1991, he could neither appear nor could move for adjournment on account of backache due to which he was confined to bed. It was further mentioned in the application that this Court had held in several cases that the Tribunal was empowered to recall its order in these circumstances. This application under section 22 of the said Act came up for hearing before a two-member Bench of the Tribunal, consisting of a Departmental Member and a Judicial Member. The Departmental Member was of the view that the application should be allowed whereas the Judicial Member was of the opinion that the application deserved to be dismissed. The reasoning adopted by the learned Judicial Member is that since the applicant failed to point out any mistake in the judgment of the Tribunal, the provisions of section 22 of the Act were not applicable. He agreed with the contention of the applicant that the Tribunal had the inherent powers to set aside the order disposing the appeal ex parte, but it was not a fit case in which the said power could be exercised. On account of difference of opinion between two members of the Bench, the case was referred to the third member who agreed with the opinion of the Judicial Member. The result was that by means of the impugned order dated December 16, 1992, the application of the applicant under section 22 of the Act was dismissed. Now the applicant has come up in revision. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Sales Tax Tribunal is meant to do justice between the parties and to secure that end, it has inherent powers to set aside an order passed ex parte without hearing the assessee. In support of his contention he placed his reliance on the cases of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Devi Kumar Prem Kumar 1985 ATJ 539, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kanhaiya Lal Jawala Prasad 1985 UPTC 1009 and Rajan Chopra Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1987 ATJ 915. In these decisions it has been held that the underlying idea to create the Tribunal is that they may impart justice to the parties for which it is essential to give appropriate opportunity of being heard to both the parties. It has further been held that the Tribunal has inherent powers to set aside its order disposing of the appeals ex parte. In fact it could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the Tribunal is possessed of inherent powers to revoke the impugned orders. Now the question is as to whether it was a fit case in which the inherent powers should have been exercised or not. In this case the assessee-firm had closed. The service for hearing the appeal was effected on its learned counsel who gave an affidavit that in spite of his best efforts he was not able to locate the partners of the firm, as the same had closed and, therefore, he sought adjournment on three consecutive dates and finally his own affidavit is a clear indication of the earnestness on the part of the learned counsel for the applicant to prosecute the appeal and to be present at the time of hearing. Since he fell ill on the last adjournment date, his absence on the last date could not be said to be unjustified. The result is that the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated December 16, 1992 and August 27/28, 1991, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal are hereby set aside. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal for disposing of the two appeals on merits, after hearing both the parties. The parties shall appear thereon on March 15, 1993. In case the applicant fails to appear before the Tribunal on March 15, 1993 this order shall stand automatically vacated. The Tribunal shall be free not to grant more than one adjournment to the applicant. With these directions the revision is disposed of finally at the admission stage. Petition allowed. .;