Natural justice and writ relief denied where repeated opportunities were ignored and appellate delay was substantial.

Repeated notices, reminders and opportunities to reply or produce documents meant the petitioner could not claim denial of hearing, and the plea of breach of natural justice failed because service was evidenced and no effective participation was made. The court also refused writ relief under Article 226, holding that discretionary and equitable intervention is unavailable where the litigant's conduct shows callousness and lack of diligence, especially when the delay in appeal was substantial and the appellate authorities acted within lawful limits on condonation. The challenge therefore did not succeed and the Revenue's position prevailed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders-in-original and the concurrent orders refusing to condone delay suffered from breach of natural justice or warranted interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The petitioner was repeatedly called upon to appear, file replies, and produce documents, but no replies were filed and no effective appearance was made despite several opportunities. The authorities noted service of notices and reminders, and the petitioner's own conduct, including partial payment of the assessed liability, showed that the case was not one of denial of opportunity. In the circumstances, the plea that the orders were ex parte or contrary to natural justice was not accepted. The Court also held that discretionary and equitable relief in writ jurisdiction is unavailable to a litigant whose conduct reflects callousness and lack of diligence, particularly where the delay in appeal was substantial and the appellate authorities had acted within the legal limits of condonation.

Conclusion: The challenge failed. No breach of natural justice was made out, and no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction was established; the decision was against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.

---