Adjudicatory order passed without hearing parties violates principles of natural justice and warrants <i>de novo</i> consideration.

The Petitioner, M/S AWL Agri Business Limited, acquired Satya Sai Agroils Pvt. Ltd. (SSA), which had previously received stamp duty incentives under the Industrial Promotion Policy, 2004.

SSA was subsequently amalgamated with the Petitioner via a High Court of Gujarat order dated 28.10.2015.

The Petitioner applied to the Collector, Vidisha, on 11.02.2016 for concessional stamp duty under Article 25(13) of the Notification dated 02.01.2015 regarding the amalgamation of industrial units as a going concern.

The Divisional Commissioner rejected this claim on 16.08.2018, asserting the unit had already availed benefits; the Petitioner challenged this before the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh in Revision No. 416/2021.

On 02.04.2025, the Board recorded that no parties appeared and reserved the matter for orders; however, in the final order dated 22.04.2025, the Board stated it had considered the Petitioner’s counsel's submissions while dismissing the revision.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to factual inconsistencies in the record regarding the hearing of the parties.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), which necessitates that any party likely to be affected by an adverse order must be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity to be heard.

The court also relied on the administrative law principle that an adjudicatory order must not be based on findings that are demonstrably erroneous or "ex facie" unsustainable based on the authority's own record of proceedings.

The High Court examined the internal records of the Board of Revenue and found a manifest contradiction.

The proceedings recorded on 02.04.2025 explicitly stated that "none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, nor was any one present on behalf of the respondents," yet the final order dated 22.04.2025 claimed in paragraph 3 that the "submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner were considered".

The Court reasoned that since the record proved no hearing actually took place on the date the matter was reserved, the recital in the final order was factually incorrect and contrary to the record.

The Court determined that the Petitioner was denied a fair and effective opportunity to present its case, rendering the adjudication process flawed regardless of the underlying merits of the stamp duty claim.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Board of Revenue's order dated 22.04.2025, remitted the matter for fresh consideration, and directed the parties to appear before the Board on 24.07.2026 for an expeditious decision.