Natural justice challenge to assessment revision failed where notice, objections and personal hearing were provided; revisional jurisdiction was upheld.

Revision of assessment was upheld where the assessee had prior notice of the proposed enhancement, filed detailed objections and received personal hearings, so the plea of breach of natural justice failed. The court also accepted that section 27 of the State enactment conferred revisional power on the respondent; the challenge went only to the manner of exercise and the merits of the reassessment, not to the existence of jurisdiction. The writ appeals were therefore held to be without merit, and the assessee was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision of assessment was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. (ii) Whether the respondent had jurisdiction to revise the assessment under the State enactment.

Issue (i): Whether the revision of assessment was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The notices proposing revision set out the basis for the proposed enhancement of turnover, the assessee filed detailed objections, and personal hearing was granted twice. The assessee was therefore aware of the case to be met, and the assessment could not be said to have been made without fair opportunity. Reliance on an external decision was also found to be only one of the reasons, not the sole foundation of the assessment.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent had jurisdiction to revise the assessment under the State enactment.

Analysis: Section 27 of the State enactment conferred revisional power on the respondent. The challenge was not to the existence of that power, but to the manner of its exercise and the effect of assessments made elsewhere, which raised questions going to the merits of the dispute. Those merits were not examined in the writ proceedings, and the court accepted the view that the jurisdictional power itself existed.

Conclusion: The respondent's revisional jurisdiction was upheld and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeals were held to be without merit, the assessee's challenge to the assessment orders failed, and the assessee was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy granted by the court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee had notice of the proposed revision, submitted objections, and was afforded personal hearing, a challenge based on natural justice fails; where the statute confers revisional power, the existence of jurisdiction is not defeated merely because the merits of the reassessment are disputed.

---