JUDGMENT Gentle, J. - This is a reference by the Board of Revenue, Bengal, pursuant to sec. 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and is made at the instance of the assessees. They are dealers in cloth, including Benarasi shawls and saris, and they claim the benefit given by sec. 6 of the Act, which provides that no taxes shall be payable on the sale of goods specified in the first column of the Schedule. Item 16 of the Schedule is that which the assessees contend enables them to escape assessment of tax. It is in respect of hand-loom-woven cloth. In respect of some of the cloth, with which the assessees deal, after it has been finished and removed from the hand-loom, embroidery and other fancy work is made to it by hand; undoubtedly the addition considerably increases its value. It is argued that the provisions of sec. 6 coupled with Item 16 of the Schedule apply to hand-loom cloth, no matter what may be done to it, or no matter by how much its value and the selling price may be increased so long as the cloth retains its identity and is not converted into some article such as a dressing-gown or other piece of clothing. 2. There are two questions raised in this reference, namely, (i) Whether the hand-loom-woven cloth which, after it comes out of the loom, is subjected to needle work performed by hand or machine and thereby has its value increased, may still be regarded as hand-loom-woven cloth within the meaning of Item No. 16 of the Schedule of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941? (ii) Whether the Board can reject an application for revision under sec. 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, without a hearing being granted to the petitioners? 3. So far as the first question is concerned, in my opinion, the exception with respect to hand-loom-woven cloth applies only to that cloth simpliciter. If its value is increased, other work being carried at upon it, whether it be by hand or by machinery in the way of embroidery, tapestry or the like, then the cloth or the shawl or whatever it may be, is not as it comes from the hand-loom, is not hand-loom-woven cloth simpliciter, but becomes something more than that. If its value is increased, other work being carried at upon it, whether it be by hand or by machinery in the way of embroidery, tapestry or the like, then the cloth or the shawl or whatever it may be, is not as it comes from the hand-loom, is not hand-loom-woven cloth simpliciter, but becomes something more than that. In my opinion, the provisions of the section and Item 16 apply only to hand-loom-woven cloth which is sold in the same state in which it is when finished and removed from the room. Therefore it follows that the answer to the first question is in the negative. 4. Now, as regards the second question which requires reference to section 20 of the Act. An assessment can be made by an assistant to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and when that is done the assessee has a right under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 20 to carry the matter by way of revision to the Commissioner and again also from the decision or disposal by the Commissioner in the like manner to the Board of Revenue seeking revision of the order passed by the assistant or by the Commissioner as the case may be The proviso to sub-sec. (3) is to the effect that before rejecting any application for revision the Commissioner or the Board shall consider it and shall record reasons for the objection. Sub-sec. 5 enacts: Before any order is passed under this section which is likely to affect any person +adversely, such person shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. In the present case an assistant made an assessment and from his order of assessment there was a petition to the Commissioner to revise the order. On the 25th August, 1942, the Commissioner in his order stated that the so-called Benarasi cloth could be treated as hand-loom-woven cloth, pure and simple, and be exempt from Sales Tax only if the cloth was sold as it conies out of the loom, i.e., without further needle embroidery work with the hand or by machine. Being dissatisfied with the Commissioner's conclusion the assessees pursuant to sub-sec. (3) of sec. 20 carried the matter to the Board of Revenue seeking to have the order of assessment revised. Being dissatisfied with the Commissioner's conclusion the assessees pursuant to sub-sec. (3) of sec. 20 carried the matter to the Board of Revenue seeking to have the order of assessment revised. On the 11th September, 1942, the petition was rejected and reasons of the Board are given, to which it is not necessary to refer. In rejecting the petition notice was not given to the assessees ; they were not heard and the petition was dealt with in their absence. It would seem that a later petition was presented to the Board of Revenue asking for reconsideration and that an opportunity should be given to the assessees to be heard. Upon that petition the Board by order dated the 20th July, 1943, rejected the second petition in these terms : The petitioner appears to be under the mistaken impression that his previous application to the Board was rejected for some defect of procedure. This was not the case ; the petition was rejected its merits after consideration of a report called for from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. There is, in the view of the Board, nothing in the present petition which would justify re-opening the matter. The petition is accordingly rejected. 6. Again, it will be seen it was rejected in the absence of the petitioners and without an opportunity being given to them to be heard. 7. Now, it is undisputed that everyone, ordinarily, is entitled to be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to matters which affect him or which may affect his affairs and an order cannot be made with regard to those matters unless that opportunity is afforded, that is to say, disposal cannot take place in his absence unless he has been given the chance of putting forward his case. The question here is whether that right has been taken away by sub-sec. (5) of sec. 20. In my view it has not. All that the section provides is that an order shall not be passed which is likely to affect any person adversely unless such person is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In my opinion the dismissal of an Appellant's appeal or a petitioner's petition for revision is an order which adversely affects the Appellant or the petitioner as the case may be. In my opinion the dismissal of an Appellant's appeal or a petitioner's petition for revision is an order which adversely affects the Appellant or the petitioner as the case may be. It may have the effect of not affecting him more adversely than the order against which the appeal or the petition is preferred, be dismissal of the appeal and the petition summarily in his absence prevents him having an opportunity of putting forward his views and also it has the effect of enforcing the order against which the appeal or revision is sought to be made. I have come to the conclusion that sub-sec. (5) expressly provides that when a petition is going to be dismissed or any other order is going to be made, which will adversely affect any person, that person is entitled to be given an opportunity of being heard and showing cause against the order being made; of course if a revision petition is before the Board or the Commissioner and either the Board or the Commissioner in the absence of the petitioner decides to accede to the petition and to grant it, naturally an order in his favour can be made without the petitioner being given an opportunity of being present. 8. In my view the answer to the second question should be in the negative. In the light of the answer to the first question, the second question and its answer is purely academic in this matter, but we were asked to express an opinion regarding that question. In these circumstances it seems to us that the correct order to make is that there should be no order for costs. Das, J. I agree.