Vague review notice and denial of fair hearing invalidate tax review proceedings and render reassessment without jurisdiction.

A review notice under Section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 must disclose sufficient particulars so the dealer can meet the proposed enhancement of tax or penalty, and a vague reference to under-levy or wrong calculation is inadequate. Where review may increase liability, the statute and Rule 32 require recorded reasons and a reasonable opportunity of hearing; an extremely short response time and refusal of a meaningful request for papers breach natural justice. If no notice precedes review of an assessment order, the statutory precondition is not met and the review is without jurisdiction. The review notices, review orders, and consequential demand notices were quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh after proper notice and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notice to review was invalid for want of relevant particulars and for vagueness; (ii) whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the review order was passed; and (iii) whether the review of the assessment order for assessment year 1994-95 was bad for want of notice.

Issue (i): whether the notice to review was invalid for want of relevant particulars and for vagueness

Analysis: Section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 permits review only to correct a mistake apparent from the record, and where the review enhances tax or penalty the dealer must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. That requirement necessarily includes notice of the case to be met. A review notice must therefore contain sufficient particulars to enable an effective reply. A vague notice that merely refers to under-levy or wrong calculation, without indicating the precise point in dispute, frustrates the statutory safeguard.

Conclusion: The notice to review was invalid and could not sustain the review proceedings.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the review order was passed

Analysis: The notice fixed an extremely short time for response, leaving no real opportunity to collect records and answer the proposed review. Rule 32 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 requires reasons to be recorded for review, and the proviso to Section 47 mandates a fair hearing where the liability is enhanced. The hurried disposal of the assessee's request for fresh notice and supporting papers showed non-compliance with the duty to afford a meaningful hearing and amounted to violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the review order was unsustainable.

Issue (iii): whether the review of the assessment order for assessment year 1994-95 was bad for want of notice

Analysis: The record showed no notice before review of the assessment order for assessment year 1994-95. In the absence of notice, the statutory precondition for review was not satisfied and the order was passed without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The review of the assessment order for assessment year 1994-95 was illegal and without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The review notices, the review orders, and the consequential demand notices were quashed, with liberty to issue a fresh notice and proceed in accordance with law after giving a proper hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires reasonable opportunity before enhancement on review, the notice must disclose sufficient particulars to enable an effective reply, and a review made without such notice or fair hearing is invalid.

---