Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hero Honda Motors Limited vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 May, 2011
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 22720 of 2010
Date of Decision: 10.5.2011
Hero Honda Motors Limited
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ.
1. This petition seeks quashing of orders dated 13.1.2010 and 2.6.2010 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and declining to restore the same.
2. Case of the petitioner is that it was exempted under Rule 28-A of the relevant Rules under the provisions of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. However, assessment was made and the petitioner was held liable to tax against which first appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was filed before the Tribunal. On the date fixed, a slip for adjournment was moved on the ground that its counsel suffered paralysis. However, the Tribunal decided the case against the petitioner on merits. The petitioner sought restoration. The said prayer has been declined on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance.
CWP No. 22720 of 2010 -2-
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is sufficient medical evidence in the form of documents, Annexure P-18, showing the illness of the counsel. In these circumstances, the prayer for adjournment was well-founded.
5. While normally this Court may not go into the issue of genuineness or otherwise of the ground for adjournment before the Tribunal, we are of the view that having regard to the medical record, a liberal view could be taken and the matter should be dealt with on merits by the Tribunal after giving an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders dated 13.1.2010 and 2.6.2010 and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 25.7.2011.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
May 10, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE