Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue, while hearing a revision, could examine and modify a point not raised in the revision petition, and whether a separate notice in Form XII was required before doing so.
Analysis: The Board's revisional power under section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, was read with section 24(6), which requires only a reasonable opportunity of being heard before making any order likely to affect a person adversely. Rule 38 was construed as applying where the affected person is not already present and heard in the proceedings. Since the assessee's counsel was present before the Board and no adjournment was sought on the point, the Court held that a separate proceeding or Form XII notice was not necessary. The Court also treated the adequacy of opportunity as a factual matter, and found no infringement of section 24(6) on the facts.
Conclusion: The Board of Revenue was competent to consider the point suo motu, and no special notice in Form XII was required in the circumstances; the assessee was not denied reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the affected party is actually present and heard in revisional proceedings, section 24(6) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 is satisfied without a separate notice in Form XII, and rule 38 does not require a fresh notice before the revisional authority acts on a point likely to affect that party adversely.