Opportunity of hearing required before revisional enhancement of sugarcane purchase tax; higher liability without notice was illegal.

A revising authority exercising suo motu revisional power cannot enhance sugarcane purchase tax without first giving the affected parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The record showed that the revisional order was not decided on the scheduled date, and the respondents did not specifically answer the claim that an effective hearing was denied. Because the enhancement increased the petitioners' tax liability, fairness required a proper hearing before any higher assessment could be imposed. The revisional order was therefore treated as illegal for breach of the opportunity-of-hearing requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revising authority could enhance the sugarcane purchase tax without affording the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The revising authority exercised suo motu revisional power and enhanced the tax from the amount assessed by the assessing authority. The record indicated that the revisional order was not decided on the date fixed, and the plea that the petitioners were denied an effective hearing was not specifically met by the respondents. Since the enhancement of tax exposure was adverse to the petitioners, fairness required that they be given a proper opportunity to be heard before any higher liability was fixed.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the revisional order was illegal.

---