Quasi-judicial revision: no implied oral hearing absent adverse material, and unraised valuation points cannot defeat writ review.

In a quasi-judicial revision under section 33A(2), the Commissioner was not bound to grant an oral hearing or call for further material before rejecting the revision, because the petitioner could place all supporting material with the application and no undisclosed adverse material was shown to have been relied upon. The absence of a separate hearing therefore did not vitiate the revisional order. The further contention that the assessment should have been based on the market value of the gold patlas on the date of partial partition also failed, as the record did not show that this point had been specifically pressed before the Commissioner. A writ challenge could not succeed on a point not properly raised below, and the revisional order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner, while disposing of a revision application under section 33A(2), was bound to grant an oral hearing or call for further material before rejecting the revision. (ii) Whether the assessment should have been made on the market value of the gold patlas on the date of partial partition, and whether omission to consider that aspect vitiated the order.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner, while disposing of a revision application under section 33A(2), was bound to grant an oral hearing or call for further material before rejecting the revision.

Analysis: The proceeding before the Commissioner was quasi-judicial, but the petitioner himself had invoked revision and could place all supporting material with the application. The Commissioner was not required to fix a separate date to enable the petitioner to adduce further material, unless he intended to rely on adverse material not already disclosed. No new adverse material was shown to have been relied upon. The revision order of the Tribunal had already been considered by the appellate authority, and there was no right to insist on personal oral hearing in such a proceeding.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the absence of an oral hearing did not vitiate the revisional order.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment should have been made on the market value of the gold patlas on the date of partial partition, and whether omission to consider that aspect vitiated the order.

Analysis: The record did not show that this contention had been specifically urged before the Commissioner. A writ challenge cannot succeed on a supposed error of law when the point was not pressed before the revisional authority. The petition contained only a general complaint that the aspect had not been considered, without establishing that it had been raised for decision.

Conclusion: The contention failed and did not furnish a ground to interfere with the revisional order.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was upheld, and the petition challenging it was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a quasi-judicial revision, no oral hearing is implied unless adverse material is relied upon, and a point not specifically raised before the authority cannot be treated as a ground of manifest illegality in writ review.

---