Natural justice breach in adjudication justified supervisory interference where adverse material was undisclosed and hearing was ineffective.

Supervisory interference may be justified where an adjudication is tainted by breach of natural justice, even if an appellate remedy exists. Affected parties must receive an effective hearing and a fair chance to meet the material used against them; denial of the consultant who was to argue the matter, together with reliance on an undisclosed report relating to another assessee, amounted to procedural infirmity. The order-in-original was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication, with a direction for hearing and a limited pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order-in-original was liable to be set aside for breach of natural justice on account of denial of an effective hearing and reliance on material not supplied to the assessee, despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The limited supervisory jurisdiction is concerned with the fairness of the process rather than a merits-based reappraisal of classification. A party affected by an adverse adjudication must be given an adequate opportunity to present its case, and the absence of the consultant who was to argue the matter could prejudice that opportunity. The order also relied, at least in part, on a report relating to another assessee without showing that a copy of the report had been furnished or that the petitioners were given a chance to meet it. Those features indicated a procedural infirmity warranting interference notwithstanding the alternate remedy.

Conclusion: The order-in-original was set aside for violation of natural justice, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioners a hearing and requiring a limited pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Reliance on undisclosed adverse material and denial of a fair opportunity of hearing vitiate adjudication and justify supervisory interference.

---