Right to further hearing in revision proceedings after failure to file objections; matter remitted for fresh merits consideration.

The revisionary order was set aside because, although notice had been issued, the appellant had not filed objections or supporting material before the revisional authority. Given the continuing financial consequences and the need to construe the statutory provision, the appellant was entitled to one further opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence and case law. The revisional authority was directed to issue fresh notice, grant reasonable time and oral hearing, and decide the revision afresh on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisionary order was liable to be set aside and the revision remitted for fresh consideration on merits in view of the appellant having failed to submit objections before the revisional authority.

Analysis: The revisionary order was passed after notice had been issued to the appellant, but the appellant admittedly did not file objections or supporting material. Even so, the order had continuing financial consequences and involved interpretation of the statutory provision. In these circumstances, the appellant was held entitled to one further opportunity to place its case, including documentary evidence and case law, before the revisional authority. The revisional authority was therefore directed to issue fresh notice, grant reasonable time and oral hearing, and decide the revision afresh on merits.

Conclusion: The revisionary order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

---