Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Ashok Kumar Mani Bhai Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 10 December, 2013
M/s. Ashok Kumar Mani Bhai Patel Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
1
Writ Petition No. 668 / 2013
10.12.2013.
Shri Sumit Nema and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Challenging the order Annexure P-6 dated 28.8.2012 passed by the revisional authority rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that petitioner did not appear before the assessing authority and no justifiable reason is given for non-appearance, the revision has been dismissed without adverting to consider the merit of the assessment done and only on the ground that petitioner was defaulter before the assessing authority where proceedings were held the revision is dismissed.
Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the petitioner was defaulter and did not appear before the assessing authority, the revisional authority has adequate jurisdiction to go into the merits of the assessment done and this having not been done it is argued that an error of law has been committed by the revisional authority.
Even though Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel argued that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity granted to him before the assessing authority, thereafter an ex-parte order has been passed. But the fact remains that the revisional authority should have adverted to consider the objections raised with regard to the assessment, evaluate the same and thereafter decide the revision in M/s. Ashok Kumar Mani Bhai Patel Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
2accordance to law, after considering the objection of petitioner on merit. It was not appropriate for the revisional authority to mechanically dismiss the revision and upheld the order passed by the assessing authority on the ground that petitioner did not appear before the assessing authority. Interest of justice requires that the matter should be decided on merits, this having not been done we are of the considered view that learned revisional authority has committed error and the matter has to be remanded back for reconsideration.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 28.8.2012 passed by revisional authority is quashed and matter is remanded back to consider the objection and claim of petitioner to the assessment order and decide the revision in accordance to law.
With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (A.K. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ss/