Reasonable opportunity in revision not established where adjournment sought to defeat proceedings by limitation.

Interference in revision was declined because the assessee had prior notice of the escaped assessment and the adjournment request appeared aimed at delaying the proceedings until the revisional period expired. The court treated the plea of denial of reasonable opportunity as insufficient where the procedural objection was used to defeat the revisional process by limitation rather than to show a genuine lack of hearing. As a result, no interference with the reassessment order was warranted and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under the revisional jurisdiction was warranted on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard in the context of limitation.

Analysis: The revisional authority found that the assessee had notice of the escaped assessment and that the request for adjournment was made in a manner that would have delayed the proceedings until the revisional period under section 35(2)(c) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 expired. In these circumstances, the plea of lack of reasonable opportunity was not accepted as a valid ground for interference under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Conclusion: No interference was called for, and the revision was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment order failed because the asserted procedural grievance was treated as an attempt to defeat the revisional process by limitation, rather than a genuine denial of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim of denial of reasonable opportunity will not justify interference where the request for adjournment is made to defeat proceedings by lapse of limitation and the party had prior knowledge of the assessment issue.

---