Revisional jurisdiction and natural justice bar rejection of a timely revision petition solely due to a later amendment

A revision petition filed before an amendment withdrawing revisional power cannot be rejected as not entertainable merely because the later amendment came into force after filing; the petition must be considered under the law existing when it was presented. The revisional authority also cannot decide entertainability without notice or an opportunity of hearing, since the affected party is entitled to show that the revision was validly filed. The rejection orders were quashed, and the revisions were directed to be entertained and decided on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether revision petitions filed before the amendment of section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be rejected as not entertainable on the ground that the amendment had taken away the revisional power; (ii) Whether rejection of the revision petitions without notice or opportunity of hearing vitiated the order.

Issue (i): Whether revision petitions filed before the amendment of section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be rejected as not entertainable on the ground that the amendment had taken away the revisional power.

Analysis: The revision petitions were presented before the amendment took effect. The revisional authority had jurisdiction when the applications were filed, and the subsequent amendment could not be applied so as to defeat a remedy already invoked. The earlier filing entitled the petitioners to have the revisions considered according to the law governing the field when the petitions were made.

Conclusion: The revision petitions could not be rejected merely because of the later amendment, and they were liable to be entertained on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the revision petitions without notice or opportunity of hearing vitiated the order.

Analysis: The revisional authority declined to entertain the petitions without issuing notice to the petitioners. Since the petitioners were to be affected by the decision on entertainability, they were entitled to an opportunity to show that the petitions had been validly filed before the amendment. Denial of such opportunity offended the principle of audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: The order was vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection orders were quashed and the revisional authority was directed to entertain the revision petitions and decide them on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision petition filed while the revisional power was still available cannot be rejected solely because of a later amendment withdrawing that power, and any decision affecting entertainability must comply with natural justice by giving the affected party notice and an opportunity of hearing.

---