ORDER H. S. KAMATH, PRESIDENT. - The applicant, who is a goldsmith, was assessed to taxation by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. In appeal, the Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment order and remanded the case "for fresh assessment after thorough and complete examination of his (the assessee's) accounts and transactions". The Commissioner, who was then approached in revision, declined to interfere, saying that the application for revision was premature. The assessee, he said, could come up in revision, if necessary, after a fresh assessment was made by the Sales Tax Officer and the appeal against it was decided by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has come to the Board seeking its revision. 2. The only ground urged is that the Commissioner rejected his application for revision without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Now sub-section (7) of Section 22 says :- "Before any order likely to affect any person adversely is passed under this section, he shall be given an opportunity of being heard." The question for decision is whether the order passed by the Commissioner can be considered to affect the applicant adversely. By rejecting the application for revision, all that he has done is to maintain the Assistant Commissioner's order which merely remanded the case for further enquiry, after setting aside the assessment made by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. Such an order can, in no sense, be considered as affecting the person concerned adversely. We note that the Bihar High Court has gone further and has held in Bhagwan Das v. The Province of Bihar ([1950] 1 S.T.C. 234 (238)), as entirely untenable the contention that an assessee has a right to be heard by the Commissioner, before his application for revision is rejected. Section 20(5) of the Bihar Act, which was under scrutiny, is identical with Section 22(7) of our Act, Agarwala, C.J., observed further as follows :- "The proviso to sub-section (3) [corresponding to our sub-section (5)] merely requires the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be, to consider an application before rejecting it, and does not require the aggrieved party to be heard. Sub-section (5) [corresponding to our sub-section (7)] merely requires the revising authority to hear the party before an order adverse to him is made. Sub-section (5) [corresponding to our sub-section (7)] merely requires the revising authority to hear the party before an order adverse to him is made. An order refusing to revise is not an order which can be said adversely to affect either party to the proceedings. If it had been intended that an application in revision should not be rejected without hearing the party making it, that would have been made clear in the proviso to sub-section (3)" [corresponding to our sub-section (5)]. Apparently, his Lordship was of the view that under no circumstances can an order refusing to revise be considered as affecting either party to the proceeding adversely. We do not consider it necessary to go so far as the Bihar High Court has done in this matter. Where the effect of refusal to revise is to introduce an element of finality to the proceedings, so far as the revising authority in concerned, it may well be argued that one of the parties to the dispute will be adversely affected by the order. Even in such a case, a hearing, of course, may not be claimed as of right by the party concerned, but at the same time it may be regarded as proper for the revisional tribunal to hear him before passing the order. These considerations, however, do not apply to the present case. The refusal to recise has not introduced any element of finality to the proceedings, which are still in progress and which can certainly be brought before the Commissioner once again, should the assessee find it necessary to do so, when the appropriate stage is reached. Even on grounds of propriety, therefore, the order refusing revision cannot seriously be questioned. 3. For the reasons given above, we decline to interfere with the learned Sales Tax Commissioner's order and dismiss the application for revision made to the Board. Application dismissed.