Defective revision notice and jurisdictional incompetence invalidated the Collector's order and discharged the review notice.

A revisionary order cannot be sustained where the statutory notice initiating proceedings is defective and not issued in the manner required by law. The scheme required the Collector to form the requisite opinion and issue notice himself, with the affected person receiving proper notice within the prescribed framework. Here, the proceedings were initiated by a notice from the Assistant Collector, and the later notices also failed to satisfy the statutory requirement. That defect went to the root of jurisdiction, so the Collector's order was invalid, the order-in-appeal was set aside, and the review notice was discharged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector's order could be sustained when the proceedings were initiated by a defective notice and the statutory notice contemplated for revision was not properly issued.

Analysis: The order under challenge was treated as one passed in revisionary jurisdiction. On that footing, the statutory scheme required the Collector himself to form the requisite opinion and issue the notice for revision, and the person affected had to be given notice within the prescribed framework. The record showed that the proceedings were initiated through a notice issued by the Assistant Collector, and the subsequent proceedings were also founded on notices that did not conform to the statutory requirement. In these circumstances, the defect went to the root of the competence to proceed and the resulting order could not be treated as valid.

Conclusion: The Collector's order was invalid and was set aside; consequentially, the order-in-appeal was also set aside and the Government's review notice stood discharged. The assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional objection.

---