Revisional jurisdiction and fair hearing: assessee must be allowed to contest the assessment order's validity on merits.

The revisional authority's suo motu power under the sales tax framework was held wide enough to examine the assessment order even though the revision was directed against the appellate order. That jurisdiction, however, could not be used to deprive the assessee of an opportunity to contest the assessment on facts and in law. Because no adequate hearing was given on the validity of the assessment order, the proceeding was unfair and the revisional order could not be sustained. The assessee was therefore entitled to be heard on the assessment's sustainability before the revisional authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority, while exercising suo motu revision against an appellate order, could go into the validity of the assessment order and whether the assessee was entitled to an opportunity to contest the assessment on merits before that authority.

Analysis: The power of revision under the relevant sales tax provision is wide enough to examine the assessment order even when the revision is formally directed against the appellate order, since there is no statutory bar preventing the assessee from challenging the assessment itself. The revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised in a manner that denies the assessee a forum to question the sustainability of the assessment on facts and in law. As no adequate opportunity was afforded to the assessee to raise objections going to the validity of the assessment order, the proceeding suffered from unfairness and denial of proper hearing.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to be heard on the validity of the assessment order, and the revisional order could not stand in the absence of such opportunity.

---