In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that appeals should be dismissed for want of prosecution if the appellant or their lawyer is absent, rather than being decided on merits. This decision was delivered by Justice Alok Mathur in the case of M/S Rajdhani Arms Corporation, Lucknow vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. (Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 31 of 2023).
Background of the Case
The case revolved around an appeal by M/S Rajdhani Arms Corporation, represented by its proprietor Seema Sarna, against an order dated September 7, 2017, by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal had upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, dismissing the appeal on merits despite the absence of the appellant’s counsel on the hearing date.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue was whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal could decide an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel. The revisionist argued that the Tribunal should have dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution instead of deciding it on merits.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Alok Mathur made several critical observations:
1. Code of Civil Procedure Provisions: The court referred to Order IX, Rule 6(1)(a) and Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which state that if the plaintiff does not appear, the suit should be dismissed unless the defendant admits the claim. Similarly, Order XLI, Rule 17 of the CPC provides that if the appellant does not appear, the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, not decided on merits.
2. Supreme Court Precedents: The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Benny D’Souza & Ors. vs. Melwin D’Souza & Ors. (S.L.P. (C) No. 23809 of 2023), which emphasized that an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant is absent, rather than being decided on merits.
3. U.P. Value Added Tax Rules: The Standing Counsel argued that Rule 63(4) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008, allows the Tribunal to decide an appeal ex parte if either party is absent despite proper service of notice. However, the court interpreted the term “ex parte” to mean proceeding in the absence of the respondent/defendant, not the appellant/plaintiff.
4. Audi Alteram Partem Principle: The court stressed the importance of the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), stating that deciding a case on merits without giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties violates this fundamental rule of natural justice.
5. Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Authority: The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Company of India Ltd. v. Union of India (1976), which mandates that administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers must provide a fair hearing and clear reasons for their decisions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated September 7, 2017, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing to both parties. The Tribunal was directed to expedite the appeal and decide it within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the court’s order.
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Revisionist: M/S Rajdhani Arms Corporation, Lucknow (Proprietor: Seema Sarna)
– Opposite Party: Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P., Commercial Tax Bhawan, Lucknow
– Counsel for Revisionist: Anand Dubey
– Counsel for Opposite Party: C.S.C. (Chief Standing Counsel)
