Wrong statutory citation does not vitiate revision, but reliance on undisclosed grounds breaches natural justice

A revisional order was not invalid merely because the notice cited Section 37 instead of the provision applicable to revision of Section 45A proceedings, since wrong citation of the source of power did not by itself cause prejudice. However, the final revisional order could not stand because it relied on additional grounds and material not disclosed in the show-cause notice, depriving the affected party of a fair opportunity to meet the case and causing serious prejudice. The order was therefore set aside for breach of natural justice, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with an opportunity to respond and produce evidence under the appropriate statutory provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether invocation of the revisional power under Section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, instead of the provision governing revision of orders under Section 45A, vitiated the impugned order. (ii) Whether the final revisional order could stand when it travelled beyond the grounds stated in the show-cause notice and thereby caused prejudice to the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether invocation of the revisional power under Section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, instead of the provision governing revision of orders under Section 45A, vitiated the impugned order.

Analysis: The order of penalty and the earlier revisional order arose under Section 45A. The power to revise such an order had to be exercised under the provision applicable to Section 45A proceedings. Although the notice referred to Section 37, the mere wrong mention of the source of power does not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings unless prejudice is shown. The exception recognised in penal proceedings for total absence of notice was not attracted on the facts.

Conclusion: The order was not invalid merely because Section 37 was mentioned instead of the proper revisional provision, as no prejudice on that score was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the final revisional order could stand when it travelled beyond the grounds stated in the show-cause notice and thereby caused prejudice to the petitioner.

Analysis: The show-cause notice proceeded on specified grounds, but the final order relied on additional material and findings, including alleged clandestine transactions based on documents that were not put to notice. The petitioner was therefore denied an effective opportunity to meet the case actually made against him, resulting in serious prejudice and breach of fair procedure.

Conclusion: The final revisional order could not be sustained and was set aside for violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond and produce evidence, with liberty to proceed under the appropriate statutory provision.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order will not be quashed merely for citing the wrong statutory source if no prejudice is caused, but it cannot stand where the final decision rests on grounds not disclosed in the notice and the affected party is deprived of a fair opportunity to answer them.

---