Settlement certificate revocation and suo motu revision require specific notice, hearing, and independent jurisdictional exercise.

A settlement certificate cannot be revoked except in strict compliance with the statutory procedure, including a specific notice disclosing definite grounds, particulars and a real opportunity of hearing; on the facts, the vague notice and ex parte disposal rendered the revocation invalid, though fresh proceedings were left open. A suo motu revisional proceeding cannot be initiated while the settlement certificate remains operative, and the revisional authority must independently examine the record before exercising power; here, the pre-revocation, mechanical revision was incompetent and was quashed. As the recovery demand depended entirely on the failed revision, the consequential tax recovery proceeding also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order revoking the certificate of settlement was valid when passed on a vague notice without reasonable opportunity of hearing; (ii) whether the suo motu revisional proceeding was valid when initiated before revocation of the settlement certificate and without independent formation of opinion by the revisional authority; (iii) whether the tax recovery proceeding based on such revision could survive.

Issue (i): whether the order revoking the certificate of settlement was valid when passed on a vague notice without reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: A certificate of settlement under the settlement statute is conclusive as to the dispute covered by it, and revocation can be made only in the manner authorised by the statute. The revocation notice must disclose definite grounds and particulars so that the dealer can meet the accusation. The notice here was found to be vague and indefinite, with no proper particulars of the alleged suppression or false returns and no material showing that notice was served before the ex parte order. The proceeding was also completed on the first date without a real opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The revocation order was invalid and was set aside, though liberty was granted to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): whether the suo motu revisional proceeding was valid when initiated before revocation of the settlement certificate and without independent formation of opinion by the revisional authority.

Analysis: While the settlement certificate remained in force, the statute barred reopening of the settled dispute in review or revision. The revisional notice was issued before revocation of the certificate, so the revision was premature and incompetent. The record also did not show that the revisional authority independently considered the assessment records and formed its own opinion before initiating revision. The proceeding was thus vitiated both by lack of jurisdiction at the time of initiation and by mechanical exercise of power.

Conclusion: The suo motu revisional proceeding and the final revisional order were quashed.

Issue (iii): whether the tax recovery proceeding based on such revision could survive.

Analysis: The recovery proceeding was founded on the revisional enhancement, and once the revision itself failed, the consequential recovery demand had no independent footing.

Conclusion: The tax recovery proceeding was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded in substance: the revocation order was set aside, the suo motu revision was annulled, and the recovery action was invalidated, with only a limited liberty to recommence the revocation process lawfully.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement certificate cannot be revoked, and a settled assessment cannot be reopened, except through strict compliance with the statutory procedure, including a specific notice, reasonable opportunity of hearing, and independent exercise of revisional jurisdiction after the settlement is lawfully revoked.

---