Natural justice and additional evidence in appeal require a reasoned ruling before disposal on merits.

The statutory scheme did not bar a duly authorised officer who had conducted inspection from making the reassessment, and the bias and natural justice challenge failed because no definite evidence supported the allegation, opportunities to produce documents had been given, and the objection was raised late. The appellate authority, however, was required to expressly decide the request for additional documents by a reasoned order and, if allowed, consider their effect while disposing of the appeal on merits. Because the appellate order did not show any real adjudication on the additional evidence, it was unsustainable and required reconsideration at the first appellate stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment order was vitiated on the ground of bias or denial of a fair opportunity, and whether the officer who conducted inspection was barred from making the reassessment under the statutory scheme; (ii) Whether the appellate authority was bound to consider the additional documents produced in appeal and pass a reasoned order on that request.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment order was vitiated on the ground of bias or denial of a fair opportunity, and whether the officer who conducted inspection was barred from making the reassessment under the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the prescribed authority to carry out reassessment, and the jurisdictional provisions did not prohibit the officer who had conducted inspection from proceeding with reassessment when duly authorised. The plea of bias was examined on the material available and was found unsupported by definite evidence. The record showed that opportunities had been granted to produce documents, and the contention that the order was passed in haste or in breach of natural justice was not established. The plea of bias was also raised belatedly after participation in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge based on bias and denial of opportunity was rejected and the issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority was bound to consider the additional documents produced in appeal and pass a reasoned order on that request.

Analysis: The appellate provision contemplated disposal of the appeal on merits and permitted additional evidence where necessary, while at the same time prohibiting remand at that stage. The appellate authority was therefore required to deal with the prayer for production of additional documents, decide it by a reasoned order, and, if allowed, consider its effect while deciding the appeal. Since the appellate order did not show any real adjudication on the additional documents, the statutory duty was not complied with.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner and the appellate order was held unsustainable for non-consideration of the additional documents.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed on the bias and natural justice objections, but succeeded on the appellate authority's failure to deal with the additional evidence. The matter was required to be reconsidered at the first appellate stage on the additional documents and the connected appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute permits additional evidence in appeal and bars remand, the appellate authority must expressly decide the prayer for such evidence by a reasoned order and, if permitted, must consider it while disposing of the appeal on merits.

---