Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 117 (MP)

SHAKTIMAN AUTO FABRICATORS PVT. LTD. , PITHAMPUR v. DY. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, INDORE & OTHERS.

2006-01-19

N.K.MODY

body2006
JUDGMENT N. K. Mody, J. This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No. 3981/2005. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2005, passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby an Application filed by the Petitioner for restoration of Revision, was dismissed on 12.2.2004 in default, the present Petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of M. P. Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'MPCT Act'). The registration of the Petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 26.4.2003 against which Revision Petition was preferred by the Petitioner which was dismissed on 10.2.2004, against which a Restoration Application was filed by the Petitioner on 5.2.2005, which was dismissed by the Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the order of dismissal was served upon the Petitioner on 4.4.2004 and the Application for Restoration/Review has been filed after a lapse of 12 months from the date of the order, which is not permissible as per sub-rule 4 of rule 79 of the Rules, 1995. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order of dismissal of the revision vide order dated 12.2.2004 was not served upon the Petitioner either on 4.4.2004, or on any other date. From perusal of the record, it is evident that order was not served on the Petitioner. In the circumstances, the Respondent No. 1 committed error in dismissing the Application on the ground that the Application is filed after 12 months. In view of this, the petition is allowed. The Order Annexure P-1 dated 30.5.2005 whereby Application filed by the Petitioner for restoration was dismissed is quashed. Since the Petitioner has not been heard on merits, therefore, the Restoration Application filed by the Petitioner is allowed. The Petitioner is directed to remain present before Respondent No. 1 on 16.2.2006. On this date, Respondent No. 1 shall fix the date of hearing and shall decide the case on merits. The record be sent back. With the aforesaid observations, the Petition stands disposed-of. No order as to costs.