SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED against an appellate order the assessee filed a revision. On the date fixed for its hearing the assessee was absent. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, read the appellate order and felt that there was no room for interference. On this ground the revision was dismissed. Thereafter the assessee made an application for the setting aside of the order disposing of the revision. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, held : "The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that as there was no service at all on the assessee, ex parte revisional order could not be passed. The particular notice alleged to have been taken by the assessee has been produced and I am surprised how it was interpreted on the basis of the endorsement made that the assessee had been served. The report clearly shows that the proprietor did not receive it. No service by affixation was made. I am thus satisfied that the order passed should not be allowed to sustain."
(2.) THE Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, relied upon the case of Sri Bhagwan Radha Kishan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. ([1952] 22 I.T.R. 104), in support of the proposition that there was inherent jurisdiction in the Tribunal to set aside the order of dismissal for default when it was satisfied that there was in fact no service of notice. On this view, the application was allowed and the revision was restored to its original number. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has referred the following question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Judge (Revisions) was legally justified to set aside his own ex parte revisional order passed on merits and to restore it to its original number for disposal de novo ?" Section 22 of the U.P Sales Tax Act provides that "the assessing, appellate, revising or additional revising authority may at any time within three years from the date of any order passed by it rectify any mistake apparent on the record". The question whether the notice was validly served upon the assessee was one of fact that had to be determined by the revising authority before the revision could be taken up for disposal. In the present case, the report that the assessee has been served was challenged on the ground that it was completely erroneous. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, came to the conclusion that the report that the assessee had been served was patently erroneous; clearly this is a case of a mistake apparent on the record, and so the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, had jurisdiction to rectify it by finding that the assessee had not been served and giving a consequential effect to this finding by setting aside the revisional order which was passed in the absence of the assessee.
(3.) IN relation in inherent powers possessed by the Tribunal having the function of deciding disputes judicially a Division Bench of this Court in Debi Prasad v. Sri Khelawan (1956 A.L.J. 13), laid down the law as follows : "As regards the inherent power of courts of law to modify or set aside their orders, the law may be stated thus : As a general rule no court or judge has power to rehear, review, alter or vary any judgment or order after it has been entered or drawn up respectively : see Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham Edition), Volume 19, page 260; see Order 20, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure. ;