Natural justice and conditional remand govern fresh adjudication where notice was disputed and service address was not updated.

An adjudication may be set aside where notice after remand is not effectively served and the party is denied a real opportunity of hearing, as that amounts to breach of natural justice. However, where the affected party knew of the proceedings but failed to update the service address or pursue the remand with due diligence, the matter may still be remitted for fresh consideration on conditions. The merits of the tax dispute remain open in such a conditional remand, and partial relief may be granted by combining setting aside of the order with a requirement of deposit and appearance before the authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the adjudication order was liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice owing to alleged non-service of notice after remand; (ii) whether the matter could be remanded for fresh adjudication subject to a condition of deposit, having regard to the appellant's failure to update the address and the prior remand proceedings.

Issue (i): whether the adjudication order was liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice owing to alleged non-service of notice after remand.

Analysis: The record showed that the address used for service in the impugned proceedings and the address reflected in the writ petition were the same. At the same time, the appellant asserted that he had shifted residence and had not participated after remand. The Court treated the dispute as one going to notice and opportunity of hearing, and did not go into the merits of the tax liability.

Conclusion: The order dated 24.04.2024 was held to be vulnerable for want of a proper opportunity of hearing and was set aside on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Issue (ii): whether the matter could be remanded for fresh adjudication subject to a condition of deposit, having regard to the appellant's failure to update the address and the prior remand proceedings.

Analysis: The appellant was aware of the earlier remand but had not exercised due diligence in pursuing the proceedings or updating the service address. The Court therefore balanced the requirement of fresh hearing against the appellant's conduct and considered a conditional remand appropriate, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh consideration subject to deposit of Rs.75,00,000/- in two instalments and appearance before the respondent on the specified date.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was set aside for denial of hearing, but the reassessment was ordered to proceed afresh with a monetary condition, resulting in only partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication passed without affording a real opportunity of hearing may be set aside for breach of natural justice, but where the affected party failed to update its service address despite knowledge of the proceedings, the Court may direct a conditional remand while leaving the merits open.

---