ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Various grounds have been brought on record including the medical certificate of a qualified doctor to assert that it was for the reasons beyond the control of revisionist that he could not appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed, resulting in passing of an ex-parte order against him. An application under Section 31 for recall of such order has also been rejected.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that sufficient cause had been brought on record before the Tribunal to explain absence of revisionist and being in the realm of procedural review, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to allow the same and afford an opportunity of hearing. It is otherwise stated that an adjudication on merits is to be preferred over an ex-parte proceedings, and therefore, Tribunal was not justified in refusing to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in 2003 UPTC 608 (Ram Sewak Coal Depot v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) , wherein while considering pari materia provisions under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, this Court had been pleased to observe that power to recall an ex-parte order inheres in every Tribunal, being incidental and ancillary in nature, for the jurisdiction to be exercised in accordance with law. Reliance is also placed upon an subsequent decision of this Court in General Manager, Telecom Distt. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow, (2015) 28 VLJ 278.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that an adjudication on merits has not taken place. It is however contended that in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in passing the order under challenge.;