Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Union of India Vs Ashok Shahi (Orissa High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) No.17277 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/07/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Union of India Vs Ashok Shahi (Orissa High Court)

In a recent development, the Orissa High Court has intervened in a significant legal dispute between the Union of India and Ashok Shahi, directing a rehearing of a tax appeal. This case, which initially saw the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution, has been brought back into the spotlight following a petition for reconsideration. The court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the right to a proper hearing.

Background of the Case

The legal saga began with a tax appeal, F.A. No.180/2010, filed by Ashok Shahi. On June 22, 2022, this appeal was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, due to non-prosecution. Ashok Shahi, who was reportedly present at all previous hearings, was absent on this date, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Following the dismissal, Ashok Shahi filed a petition under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to restore the appeal. However, this petition, R.A. No.17 of 2023, was also dismissed on May 3, 2024. Ashok Shahi challenged these dismissals in the Orissa High Court, arguing that the proceedings were unfairly handled.

Court’s Rationale

The petitioner argued that the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was improper given that he had been present at all previous hearings. Citing a precedent from Rabindra Kumar Mohanty vs. The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, the petitioner contended that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission should have provided a proper opportunity for hearing before dismissing the appeal.

The Orissa High Court, after reviewing the submissions and the cited case law, agreed with the petitioner’s argument. The court found that the dismissal of the appeal without a fair hearing was inconsistent with principles of justice and procedural fairness. The court decided to set aside the orders from June 22, 2022, and May 3, 2024, and remitted the matter back to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for a fresh decision on merits.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 22.06.2022 and 03.05.2024 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha in F.A. No.180/2010 and R.A. No.17 of 2023 respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 22.06.2022 the proceeding vide F.A. No.180/2010 was dismissed for non- He further submits that after dismissal of the F.A. for non-prosecution, a petition under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 vide R.A. No.17 of 2023 for restoration of the appeal was filed, which was also dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Petitioner was all along present on each date of posting of the matter. But, unfortunately, on 22.06.2022 the Petitioner was not present. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindra Kumar Mohanty The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack W.P.(C) No. 2487 of 2019 submits that the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha ought to have decided the appeal vide F.A. No.180/2010 after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to both the sides rather dismissing the same for non-prosecution.

6. Considering the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner and looking to the decision cited supra, this Court while setting aside the impugned orders dated 22.06.2022 and 03.05.2024 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha in F.A. No.180/2010 and R.A. No.17 of 2023 respectively, remits the matter back to the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha for deciding the same afresh on merit by providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

7. It is also made clear that this order shall not be treated as a

8. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031