JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. As prayed by counsel for both parties the revision is being disposed of finally.
2. This revision has been filed against the order dated January 20, 2003 passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench-V, Varanasi.
3. Facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are assessment order dated March 28, 1989 was passed by Sales Tax Officer-1, Mirzapur. Appeal was filed by the revisionist against the assessment order which was partly allowed by the order dated July 31, 1989 reducing the tax liability up to the extent of Rs. 1,03,800. Second Appeal No. 99 of 1990 (Assessment Year 1984-85) and second appeal No. 127 of 1990 (Assessment Year 1984-85) was filed by the assessee before the Trade Tax Tribunal. February 2, 2002 was the date fixed in the second appeal which date was noted by counsel for appellant, but no one appeared on February 2, 2002 at the time of hearing. The second appellate authority by the order dated February 5, 2002 dismissed appeal No. 99 of 1990 and allowed the Appeal No. 127 of 1990 by enhancing the tax liability of Rs. 1,03,800. The assessee filed an application on March 6, 2002 under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for rectification of the ex parte order praying for opportunity of hearing. The application was supported by affidavit of counsel for the applicant. It was stated in the affidavit that although the counsel for the applicant noted the date February 2, 2002 but he fell ill on January 30, 2002 and was unable to move upto February 6, 2002 due to which neither he could inform the assessee nor could appear on the date of hearing. It was stated in the affidavit that ex parte order be rectified under Section 22 and opportunity of hearing be given. The Trade Tax Tribunal noted the contents of the application but rejected the application on the ground that no clear mistake in the order dated February 5, 2002 has been pointed out which required rectification, hence the application is rejected. This revision has boon filed challenging the aforesaid order dated January 20, 2003.
4. The learned counsel for revisionist challenging the said order submitted that Tribunal has jurisdiction to recall ex parte order and the Tribunal committed error in rejecting the application as not maintainable under Section 22. Reliance has been placed by counsel for appellant on division Bench judgment reported in [1982] 50 STC 183 (All.) ; 1982 UPTC 117 (M.P. Poddar and Company v. Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Varanasi Camp) and single Judge judgment reported in 2001 UPTC 464 (All.) (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sunderdas Brick Field).
5. Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel justified the order of the Tribunal. He submitted that only mistakes which are apparent on the record can be corrected under Section 22.
6. I have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the record.
7. Following two questions have arisen for determination in the present revision :
(1) Whether an ex parte order, passed by Trade Tax Tribunal can be recalled on an application under Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and what is scope of jurisdiction under Section 22?
(ii) If rectification under Section 22 of an ex parte order passed in second appeal is not permissible, whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to recall ex parte order?
8. In the present case application under Section 22 was filed for recall of ex parte order which was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no apparent mistake in the order dated February 5, 2002, hence application is liable to be rejected. Section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to an Act contains heading Rectification of mistakes, Section 22 is quoted as below :
"22. Rectification of mistakes.-(1) The assessing, appellate or revising authority of the Tribunal may, on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person rectify any mistake in its order, apparent on the record within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified :
Provided that where an application under this sub-section has been made within such period of three years, it may be disposed of even beyond such period :
Provided further that no such rectification as has the effect of enhancing the assessment, penalty, fees or other dues shall be made unless reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the dealer or other person likely to be affected by such enhancement.
(2) Where such rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment, the authority concerned shall serve on the dealer a revised notice of demand in the prescribed form and there from all the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder shall apply as if such notice had been served in the first instance."
9. The above section contains an enabling power in the assessing, appellate or revising authority or the Tribunal for rectification of any mistake in its order apparent on the record. The sub-section (1) of Section 22 uses words "mistake". Further the mistake contemplated in section is a mistake which is apparent on the record. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious a patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long process of reasoning on points on which there may be conflicting opinion and decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent on the record. A mistake which can be proved by only referring to the records and on the facts already on the record, can be said to be apparent mistake on the record.
10. Section 10 of the Act provides for filing an appeal to the Tribunal. Sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) which are relevant for the present case are quoted as below :
"(4) The Tribunal may at any stage, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, dismiss the appeal.
(5) The Tribunal may, if it has not already dismissed the appeal under sub-section (4), after calling for and examining the relevant records, and after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard or as the case may be, after following the procedure prescribed under sub-section (2-A).
(a) confirm, cancel or vary such order, or
(b) set aside the order and direct the assessing or appellate or revising authority or the Commissioner of Sales Tax, as the case may be to pass a fresh order, after such further inquiry, if any, as may be specified, or
(c) order such amount of tax, fee or penalty or other money as may have been realised in excess of the due amount to be refunded according to the provisions of this Act."
11. Section 10(5) as quoted above requires the Tribunal to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties and thereafter to pass order. Thus, Tribunal is under duty to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties and thereafter to pass order. In a case, where Tribunal do not issue notice to respondent or without fixing a date in the appeal and without giving notice to either the parties decides an appeal, the said procedure will be obviously contrary to requirement of sub-section (5). A Tribunal when decides a case without a notice and without giving any opportunity to the parties commits mistake in the order which is apparent and can be pointed out by any party by just referring to the record and the content of order. This may be further explained by referring to Rule 68 of U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. Rule 68 provides the procedure of hearing of the appeal. Rule 68(1) requires that appeal shall be heard on the date fixed by appellate authority or the Tribunal. In case the appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority/Tribunal without fixing any date there is error apparent and in that event the said apparent error can be rectified under Section 22. Rule 68 of the Rules is quoted as below :
68. Disposal of appeal-(1) The appeal shall be heard on the date to be fixed by the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal, as the case may be.
(2) The appellate authority or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall cause a notice of the date fixed under sub-rule (1) to be served well in time on the parties to the appeal at the address mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, or on their lawyer or authorised agent.
(3) The notice of cases fixed for hearing in a week shall be affixed on the notice board of the appellate authority or the Tribunal, as the case may be, on the last working day of the preceding week.
(4) On the date of hearing, if all the relevant records of appeal have been received, the parties present shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and the appellate authority or the Tribunal, as the case may be, may, after examining all the relevant records, decide the appeal :
Provided that if, despite the proper service of the notice either party is not present, the appeal may be heard and decided ex parte.
(5) The judgment in appeal shall be in writing and shall state-
(a) the points for determination ;
(b) the decision thereon ; and
(c) the reasons for such decision, (6) Cross-appeals arising out of the same case, admitted by the Tribunal, shall, as for as possible, be heard together.
(7) Copy of every order under Section 9 or Section 10 shall be delivered to, or served on the parties concerned free of charge. Copies of such order other than the first copy shall be given to the parties concerned on application and on furnishing copying folio of the value of two rupees.
(8) Any applicant or opposite party shall be entitled to have his case argued before the appellate authority or the Tribunal by a lawyer or an Accountant.
(9) The provisions of rules 77 and 77-A shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to service of notice, summons, order, etc., under this rule :
Provided that service on the State representative shall deemed to be service on the Commissioner."
12. From the Section 10(5) read with Rule 68, it is clear that if Tribunal adopts a procedure for hearing the appeal contrary to the aforesaid rule there can be error apparent on the record which may be rectified under Section 22.
13. However, jurisdiction under Section 22 can be exercised only in cases where mistake is apparent on record. In cases where Tribunal had issued due notice under Rule 68 which notice has been duly served and thereafter Tribunal proceed to decide the second appeal, even in absence of a party, it cannot be contended that there is apparent error on record. Thus in case where due notice has been given to the parties and the Tribunal adopts procedure as provided under Rule 68 and thereafter decide the matter, a party who failed to appear before the Tribunal cannot be heard in saying that any apparent mistake has been committed by Tribunal. Rule 68(4) proviso provides that if despite the proper service of the notice either party is not present, the appeal may be heard and decided ex parte.
14. From the above, it is clear that in all cases where Tribunal passes an ex parte order jurisdiction under Section 22 cannot be exercised, the application under Section 22 for rectification may be successfully made only in those cases where mistake is apparent on the record. It is thus held that application under Section 22 can be entertained under Section 22 and rectification can be done in those cases of ex parte order where Tribunal does not follow the procedure as prescribed in Rule 68 which can be demonstrated by merely referring to the records.
15. The decision of learned Single Judge in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sunderdas Brick Field 2001 UPTC 464 also supports the view which is being taken in this case that Tribunal has jurisdiction to recall its order in exercise of power under Section 22 of the Act.
16. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that due notice was given to the Counsel for revisionist of date fixed by Tribunal and on the date fixed counsel could not appear. It is not even denied on behalf of the revisionist that counsel had not noted the date fixed. The application filed under Section 22 by the revisionist, copy of which has been annexed as annexure 4 to the affidavit, filed in support of revision does not make out any case of mistake apparent on record.
17. From the facts brought in the present case, no grounds have been made out for rectification under Section 22 and no exception can be taken to the order passed by Tribunal refusing to rectify the order under Section 22.
18. Now the next question which arises is as to whether Tribunal has any jurisdiction to recall an order which has been passed ex parte. U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 do not contain any provision specifically enabling the Tribunal to recall an ex parte order. Section 30 of the Act provide for setting aside of an ex parte assessment on satisfying that the applicant did not receive notice or was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date fixed. Does absence of specific provision enabling the Tribunal to recall an ex parte order forbid the Tribunal to recall an ex parte order even in a case where the order was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to a person is core question for consideration.
19. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 requires Tribunal to pass an order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. An order passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard is clearly contrary to mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 10. When a party against whom an ex parte order was passed appears before the Tribunal and satisfies the Tribunal that order is ex parte, can the Tribunal be powerless to recall the order?
20. The question regarding jurisdiction of Tribunal which is not expressly provided has engaged attention of apex Court and various High Courts in several cases. Trade Tax Tribunal is an appellate Tribunal created under statute. A Division Bench of our Court reported in [1982] 50 STC 183 at page 186 (All.) [M.P. Poddar and Company v. Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax], while considering provision of Section 10 of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 had laid down that revising authority enjoys jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order. Before the Division. Bench writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by Additional Judge (Revisions) challenging the order rejecting the restoration application. It was laid down by Division Bench in paragraph-5 :
"5. It would also be profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi [1977] 106 ITR 653. In that case a reference application under the Income-tax Act had come up for hearing in this Court. None appeared for the applicant and this Court passed an order declining to answer the reference on account of default of the applicant, and also on the ground that paper books had not been filed. This order was passed on 26th August, 1970. On 21st September, 1970, the clerk of the Advocate, who was appearing in the case discovered that notices of the reference had been received from the High Court. On inquiry being made it was found that the matter had been disposed of on 26th August, 1970. Thereupon, an application was filed for permission to file paper books, and for rehearing of the reference. This Court held that on the reference being returned, it had become functus officio to entertain the application. This view was reversed by the Supreme court. It was held that if a party or its counsel are prevented from appearing at the time of hearing of the reference, and the party shows subsequent to the order declining to answer the reference, that there was sufficient reason for non-appearance, the High Court had inherent power to recall its earlier order and dispose of the reference on merits. It was further held that as there was no specified provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which either expressly or by necessary implications prohibited the High Court from recalling on order of dismissal for default, the High Court had jurisdiction to set aside the earlier order. We have purposely referred to this case, to thwart an argument raised by the Standing Counsel that the inherent power to set aside an ex parte order reaches only to a case where the order has been passed without due notice to an assessee or the opposite party. It is clear that the reach of inherent power exercised by a Tribunal extends beyond this region too, and embraces cases where a party shows sufficient cause for not being present on the date when the matter is up for hearing."
21. The aforesaid authority do support the contention that notwithstanding, absence of specific provision in the Act, the Revising authority enjoys jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte order. Similar view was taken by Orissa High Court in [1996] 103 STC 333 (Harendra prasad Sahu v. Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal) :
22. In case before Orissa High Court the appeal was decided by Sales Tax Tribunal ex-parte on merits. An application for restoration of the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The application was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no provision in the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 permitting restoration of second appeal disposed of in the absence of respondents on merits. It was laid down in paragraph 4 :
".......... Tribunal has all the powers conferred expressly by the statue. Furthermore, being a judicial body, it has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. Certain powers are recognised as incidental and ancillary not because they are inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the legislative intent that the power which is expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised. The implied grant is of course limited by the express grant and therefore, it can only be such powers as are truly incidental and ancillary for doing all such acts or employing all such means as are reasonably necessary to make the grand effective. (See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition). A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Aruna Kar v. Dr. Sarat Dash and Nachhi [1973] 75 CLT 24 also dealt with these aspects. The matter can be looked at from another angle. A Bench of two Members should not lightly disregard the decision of another Bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. This is particularly true when the earlier decision is rendered by a larger Bench. The rationale of this rule is the need for continuity, certainty and predictability in the administration of Justice. [See Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. AIR 1991 SC 696.
23. Appellate Tribunal deciding an appeal has all powers expressly provided in the Act as well as ancillary and incidental to the exercise of power. Section 19-A of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 expressly provides for ancillary powers to any person, officer or functionary under any U.P. Act. Section 19-A of the U.P. General Clauses Act is quoted as below :
"[19-A Ancillary powers.-Where, by any Uttar Pradesh Act, a power is given to a person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers shall be deemed also to be given as are necessary to enable that person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing]."
24. Sale Tax Tribunal is empowered to decide an appeal after giving parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. When a case has been decided in absence without any opportunity to a party, power has to be conceded to Tribunal to set aside the ex parte order and again decide the matter carrying out the mandate as given in Section 10(5). Conceding such a jurisdiction by Tribunal will facilitate decision of a case in accordance with law. When an authority has power or decide an appeal, all such ancillary and incidental power has to be read into the jurisdiction which may help in exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with law.
25. In AIR 1981 SC 606 (Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal) the apex Court considered the question as to whether Industrial Tribunal had any jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award. The Apex Court held that power to set aside ex parte award inheres in every Court or Tribunal. In paragraph 10 of the judgment it was laid down :
"10. When sub-section (1) of Section 11 expressly and in clear terms confers power upon the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, it must necessarily be endowed with all powers which bring about an adjudication of an existing industrial dispute, after affording all the parties an opportunity of a hearing. We are inclined to the view that where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient cause, and is faced with an ex parte award, it is as if the party is visited with an award without a notice of the proceedings. It is needless to stress that where the Tribunal proceeds to make an award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh."
26. In (1996) 6 SCC 92 (J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise), the apex Court had occasion to consider jurisdiction of Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to set-aside an ex parte order. Under Customs Act, 1962 and under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, there was no express power. The apex Court after considering relevant provisions laid down that the said jurisdiction has to be read into the Tribunal. Following was said in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 by the apex Court :
"4. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [1981] 2 SCR 341 ; AIR 1981 SC 606, the same principles were applied in relation to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held that where a party was prevented from appearing at a hearing due to sufficient cause and was faced with an ex parte award, it was as if the party was visited with an award without notice of the proceedings. Where an industrial Tribunal proceeded to make an award without notice to a party, the award was nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal had not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to heard afresh. The rule in question [Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957] provided that without sufficient cause being shown, if any party to proceedings before the industrial Tribunal failed to attend or bo represented, the Industrial Tribunal could proceed as if the party had duly attended or had been represented. If, therefore, there was no sufficient cause for the absence of a party the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction to proceed ex parte. But if sufficient cause was shown which prevented a party from appearing, the Industrial Tribunal had the power to set aside the ex parte award. The power to proceed ex parte. carried with it the power to enquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing.
5. Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules deals with cases where the appellant has defaulted. Rule 21 empowers CEGAT to hear appeals ex parte. The fact that Rule 21 does not expressly state that an order on an appeal heard and disposed of ex parte can be set aside on sufficient cause for the absence of the respondent being shown does not mean that CEGAT has no power to do so. Rule 41 gives CEGAT wide powers to make such orders or give such directions as might be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or, most importantly, to secure the ends of justice.
6. If, in a given case, it is established that the respondent was unable to appear before it for no fault of his own, the ends of justice would clearly require that the ex parte order against him should be set aside. Not to do so on the ground of lack of power would be manifest injustice. Quite apart from the inherent power that every Tribunal and court constituted to do justice has in this respect, CEGAT is clothed with express power under Rule 41 to make such order as is necessary to secure the ends of justice. CEGAT has, therefore, the power to set aside an order passed ex parte against the respondent before it if it is found that the respondent had, for sufficient cause, been unable to appear."
27. The above pronouncement of the apex Court fully supports the view that Trade Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order.
28. In view of what has been said above, it is held that the Trade Tax Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order and re-hear the matter. There being no express provision to that effect does not inhibit the Tribunal in any manner to recall the said judgment.
29. In view of foregoing discussion, it is clear that Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall the ex parte order. Although in the present case, the power under Section 22 could not have been exercised for rectification, but in view of what has been said above it is in the ends of justice that Tribunal should consider the application of the applicant/revisionist for recall of the ex parte judgment on merits. The Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction which inheres in it thus the order rejecting the application dated January 20, 2003 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to consider the application of the revisionist on merits for recall of the judgment.
30. The revision is allowed to the extent indicated above.