https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105268 The Commissioner's consideration of whether to invoke suo motu revisional power under the Kerala Abkari Act was held not to be a quasi-judicial adjudication at the stage of deciding whether revision should be initiated. Because no statutory right existed for an aggrieved party to demand revision, and no proceeding was pending before the Commissioner, refusal to begin revision did not amount to a prejudicial order. The statutory hearing requirement applied only after revision was initiated and an adverse order was proposed. The Commissioner was therefore not bound to afford a hearing or record reasons at the refusal stage. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105268 The Commissioner's consideration of whether to invoke suo motu revisional power under the Kerala Abkari Act was held not to be a quasi-judicial adjudication at the stage of deciding whether revision should be initiated. Because no statutory right existed for an aggrieved party to demand revision, and no proceeding was pending before the Commissioner, refusal to begin revision did not amount to a prejudicial order. The statutory hearing requirement applied only after revision was initiated and an adverse order was proposed. The Commissioner was therefore not bound to afford a hearing or record reasons at the refusal stage. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105268