Department Of Sales Tax Through Joint ... vs & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.822 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not restore a matter dismissed for want of prosecution merely on a bare assertion of technical glitch where the pleading is unconvincing and the surrounding facts, as argued by the respondent, disclose no substantive ground for recall.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Department of Sales Tax ...Appellant Through Joint Commissioner of State Tax Vs. Vijendra Kumar Jain ...Respondent
Present: Appellant: Mr. Amar Mishra, Ms. Sonal Darbar, Advocates Respondent: Mr. Manish Jha (RP)
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 20.07.2026 - Today this Company Appeal is listed for orders on Restoration
Application No.27 of 2025, wherein the appellant has sought the recall of the
Order dated 29th August, 2025, whereby the Company Appeal was dismissed for
want of prosecution. At the initial stage, we had issued notice to the respondent,
but when the matter is having taken up today, the RP has made a statement
that, owing to previous Order passed by this Tribunal on 2nd February, 2021 in
the principal Company Appeal, the RP whose role was found to be waived up
owing to the fact that the plan needs to be approved.
Having considered the grounds taken in the Restoration Application, and
particularly, those as contained in para - 4, where the appellant has pleaded
that the non-appearance was on the ground of technical glitch, the pleading do
not repose much confidence, to call to consider the restoration application on
merits, coupled with the facts, which have been argued by the Counsel for the 2
respondent, we don't find any substance in the restoration application. The same
stands rejected.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
rs/ravi
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free