Reasonable opportunity of hearing is mandatory before adverse revision; failure to hear the assessee vitiates the order.

A successor Commissioner could review a predecessor's order under the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, because rule 82 authorised review of an earlier order and the composition related to the specific offence of false representation regarding goods covered by the registration certificate, so the challenge on lack of jurisdiction failed. However, section 20(5) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 required a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse revisional order was made, and the record did not show that the assessee was heard. The revisional order was therefore invalid for breach of the mandatory hearing requirement and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to review the predecessor Commissioner's order and to direct that the declaration forms issued by the assessee be treated as valid after composition of the offence. (ii) Whether the revisional order dated 15 March 1960 was vitiated for want of a reasonable opportunity of being heard under section 20(5) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to review the predecessor Commissioner's order and to direct that the declaration forms issued by the assessee be treated as valid after composition of the offence.

Analysis: The power of review under section 20(4) was subject to the prescribed rules, and rule 82 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules authorised a Commissioner to review an order made by his predecessor-in-office. The composition related to the specific offence of false representation in relation to goods covered by the registration certificate under section 22(1)(c), and the earlier order accepting composition and treating the declaration forms as valid was within the Commissioner's authority. The successor Commissioner therefore had jurisdiction to examine the earlier order, and the challenge on the ground of lack of jurisdiction could not succeed.

Conclusion: The review by the successor Commissioner was competent, and the order could not be struck down for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order dated 15 March 1960 was vitiated for want of a reasonable opportunity of being heard under section 20(5) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: Section 20(5) required that before an order likely to affect a person adversely was passed, that person must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The record did not show that any notice or opportunity was given to the assessee before the earlier order was partly revised, and nothing in the order itself indicated that the assessee had been heard. Since the impugned order materially prejudiced the assessee, non-compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement invalidated the order.

Conclusion: The order dated 15 March 1960 was bad for violation of the statutory requirement of hearing and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded because the revisional order was invalid for breach of the mandatory hearing provision, and the writ relief quashing that order followed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an adverse revisional order is passed, failure to afford such hearing vitiates the order even if the authority otherwise has jurisdiction to review the earlier decision.

---