Natural justice in adjudication required fair disclosure of evidence; the impugned order was set aside for improper procedure.

The procedure adopted in adjudicating the Bombay export matter was held unlawful because the record did not show a formal amalgamation with the earlier Jamnagar proceeding, and the authority could not rely on material from a matter already dropped on limitation after becoming functus officio. The order also failed fairness requirements because Revenue-side material was not properly placed on record and all relied-upon materials were not put to the other side for response. The impugned order was therefore set aside for breach of natural justice and improper quasi-judicial procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the procedure adopted in adjudicating the Bombay export matter was lawful and whether the order could stand when the Revenue was not given a proper opportunity to place its case and relevant evidence.

Analysis: The record did not support the claim that the Bombay matter had been formally amalgamated with the earlier Jamnagar proceeding for joint adjudication. After the Jamnagar matter was dropped on limitation, the adjudicating authority had become functus officio in that proceeding and could not use the evidence or submissions from that matter to decide the Bombay matter without following a proper procedure. The order also showed that the Revenue-side material was not fairly brought on record before decision, and some of the materials relied on had not been placed before the other side for response. The procedure adopted therefore lacked the fairness expected in quasi-judicial adjudication.

Conclusion: The procedure was held not to be in accordance with law and the impugned order was set aside.

---