In the recent case, the Orissa High Court overturned the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal and restoration petition, ordering a new hearing with proper consideration for all parties. This decision should not be treated as a precedent.
Ashok Shahi, the respondent assessee, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the orders from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha: one dated 22.06.2022 concerning F.A. No.180/2010 and another dated 03.05.2024 related to R.A. No.17 of 2023.
The counsel of the petitioner contended that on 22.06.2022, the appeal F.A. No.180/2010 was dismissed due to non-prosecution. Following this, a petition under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (R.A. No.17 of 2023) was filed to restore the appeal, but it was also dismissed. The counsel also argued that the petitioner was present on all previous dates, but was unfortunately absent on 22.06.2022, which led to the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution.
The counsel relied on the decision made in Rabindra Kumar Mohanty Vrs. The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and contended that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha should have provided an adequate opportunity for hearing before dismissing F.A. No.180/2010 for non-prosecution.
In the case of Rabindra Kumar Mohanty Vrs. The Registrar, the petitioner/assessee the ITAT had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for lack of prosecution because neither the petitioner, their representative, nor their counsel showed up on the scheduled hearing date. The petitioner challenged this decision in writ petition arguing that the Tribunal had no authority to dismiss the appeal without addressing the merits.
The principal issue was whether the Tribunal had the power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution. The petitioner’s counsel argued that under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal must give an opportunity for both parties to be heard before making a decision. Furthermore, Rule 24 of the 1963 Rules only allows the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits if the appellant fails to appear, but does not permit dismissal solely for non-appearance.
The court agreed with the petitioner’s argument and ruled that the Tribunal should not have dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The writ petition was allowed, directing the Tribunal to restore the appeal and decide it on its merits, after giving both parties a chance to be heard.
A single bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi on considering the petitioner’s argument and cited decision had set aside the orders dated 22.06.2022 and 03.05.2024. The matter is remitted back to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha for a fresh decision on the merits, with all parties given an opportunity to be heard. The writ petition is disposed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
