Suo motu revisional power upheld where fresh hearing cured prior notice objections and remand for reassessment was sustained.

The Kerala HC article explains that a challenge to an order under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 failed where the dealer had already been given a fresh opportunity pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction and had filed a reply that was considered before the impugned order. Objections based on prior service by affixture and limitation were rejected because no infirmity in the fresh decision or its calculations was shown. It also notes that suo motu revisional power and the remand for fresh assessment were sustained, as the original assessments had been made without the relevant penalty proceedings and the dealer had been heard before remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order passed under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was vitiated for want of valid notice, improper service by affixture, or limitation. (ii) Whether the exercise of suo motu revisional power and the consequential remand for fresh assessment were legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the order passed under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was vitiated for want of valid notice, improper service by affixture, or limitation.

Analysis: The earlier round of litigation had culminated in a direction by the Supreme Court granting one more opportunity and requiring fresh consideration. In compliance, the dealer was given an opportunity and had filed a reply, which was considered before the impugned order was passed. The challenge based on prior service of notice by affixture, and the objection founded on dates preceding the earlier order, did not survive in the later round and no infirmity in the contents or calculations of the order was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge based on want of notice, service by affixture, and limitation failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the exercise of suo motu revisional power and the consequential remand for fresh assessment were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the original assessments had been completed without the relevant penalty proceedings before the assessing authority, which justified initiation of suo motu proceedings under Section 35. The dealer was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in pursuance of the Supreme Court's direction, and the Deputy Commissioner only remanded the matter for fresh assessment after considering the crime file. In those circumstances, no legal error or jurisdictional defect was demonstrated in the revisional order or in the Tribunal's affirmation of it.

Conclusion: The exercise of suo motu revisional power was upheld and the remand order was held sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were found to be without merit, and the common order of the Tribunal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a superior court has already granted a fresh opportunity and the revisional authority, in compliance, affords hearing and passes a remand order after considering the material, a belated challenge to prior service defects or limitation will not defeat the revisional order unless a specific legal infirmity in the fresh decision is shown.

---