Natural justice bars rejection of revision as time-barred when filed within permitted period and passed without hearing.

A revision petition filed within the period earlier permitted by the Court could not be rejected as time-barred without first giving the petitioner a hearing. The Madras HC held that an adverse order passed on limitation alone, despite the earlier liberty to pursue revision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and without observing natural justice, was unsustainable. The rejection orders were set aside, and the revisional authority was directed to hear the revision petitions and decide them on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders rejecting the revision petitions as time-barred, despite the earlier liberty to file revisions within the stipulated period and without affording an opportunity of hearing, were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The revision petitions had been filed within the time granted by the earlier order permitting recourse to revision under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2006. The impugned orders proceeded on limitation without hearing the petitioner, which offended the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, the rejection of the revisions as barred by limitation could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rejection orders were illegal and were set aside, with a direction to the respondents to hear the revision petitions and decide them on merits in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the matter was restored to the revisional authority for fresh consideration after enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting a revision as time-barred cannot be sustained where the revision was filed within the period permitted by the Court and the party was not given a hearing before the adverse decision.

---