Natural justice and jurisdictional defect justified writ interference against revisional tax action despite an alternative remedy.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a revisional order was vitiated where the authority failed to give an effective hearing on written objections and did not deal with the objection that part of the revised period lacked any underlying assessment. It also held that writ jurisdiction was available despite an alternative appellate remedy because the challenge raised breach of natural justice and a jurisdictional defect. The Court treated revision over a period without an assessment order as a serious jurisdictional objection, set aside the revisional order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after a meaningful hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional order was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice due to failure to afford an effective hearing on the written objections; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy, and whether revision could extend to a tax period for which no assessment order existed.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional order was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice due to failure to afford an effective hearing on the written objections.

Analysis: The earlier remand direction required the revisional authority to issue notice, hear both parties, and pass a reasoned order on merits. The impugned revisional order showed that written objections were filed after the preliminary hearing, but no subsequent personal hearing was granted to address those objections. The order also did not specifically deal with the objections raised, particularly the objection that part of the revised period had no underlying assessment. This disclosed a failure to give a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. The revisional order was vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy, and whether revision could extend to a tax period for which no assessment order existed.

Analysis: The presence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge was founded on violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The Court applied the settled exception that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in such cases. The authority's assumption of revision over a period for which no assessment order had been passed was treated as a serious jurisdictional objection supporting writ intervention.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition was maintainable, and the jurisdictional objection was sufficient to justify interference.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration after affording an effective hearing in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition remains maintainable despite an alternative remedy where the impugned action is tainted by violation of natural justice or a jurisdictional defect, and a revisional authority must strictly comply with the remand directions and provide a meaningful hearing before deciding the matter.

---