M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeals relate to certain orders passed under Section 15 of the Karnataka Tax on entry of Goods Act. The appellants had contended that they were entitled to exemption and that they were not leviable to entry tax which position was substantially upheld by the Assessment officer. The Revisional Authority issued a notice under Section 15 to the appellants stating that in his opinion the Assessing Officer had mechanically accepted the contentions raised by the appellants, that this was incorrect, that in his opinion they were liable to be taxed in respect of those transactions where the goods had physically entered the local area and that therefore he asked the appellants to show cause as to why the original orders should not be revised. The appellants sent a reply in which they pointed out that they have produced records and documentary proof in support of their contention, that the assessing authority had scrutinised each of these and come to the conclusion very rightly, that they were not liable to be taxed. ( 2 ) THE Revisional Authority thereafter issued a fresh notice in which he elaborated on the grounds whereunder the department was of the view that a considerable amount of tax has escaped assessment and he therefore asked the appellants to once again show cause. They replied the notice in question after which their Chartered Accountants who represented them were given a hearing. The Revisional Authority came to the conclusion that the appellants had not discharged the burden of establishing that the liability to pay entry tax did not devolve on them and he has also given two other reasons, the first of them being that where the contention was that the purchase was from other local dealers, that they have not produced Form 30 which the commissioner held was their responsibility and the main reason given by him was that even on the basis of the bills and other documents produced by them that there is reason to hold that they had effected the delivery within the local area and that consequently they were liable to be taxed. A substantial amount of tax was therefore levied on the appellants and they have challenged the correctness of those revisional orders through the three appeals which basically cover the assessment years 1983, 84 and 85. A substantial amount of tax was therefore levied on the appellants and they have challenged the correctness of those revisional orders through the three appeals which basically cover the assessment years 1983, 84 and 85. ( 3 ) THE main contention raised by the appellants' learned advocate is that the issuance of the notice in the present instance is unjustified. He submits, that it is not open to a Revisional authority to indiscriminately issue notice merely because the authority is of the view that the matter requires re-examination. He relies on the provisions of Section 15. He submits that there must be adequate grounds which grounds must be set out in the notice very explicitly so that the party who is sought to be assessed is aware of the reasons, why the original assessment orders is being called into question. Further more, the learned advocate submits that apart from setting out these factual and legal aspects of the matter, that while exercising powers, under Section 15 it is necessary that the authority must also record the satisfaction that by virtue of the earlier assessment which suffers from the above infirmities which are set out in the notice, that a certain amount of tax has escaped assessment and that consequently the earlier orders are prejudicial to the revenue collecting department and that therefore a valid ground has been made out for reopening those assessments and revising the order. These submissions canvassed by the appellants' learned advocate are, perfectly correct and are fully justified. It would be advisable for the authority exercising revisional powers to bear in mind that these are well settled principles of law which must be borne in mind by the authorities while exercising these powers. It needs to be also emphasised that the law attaches a certain degree of sanctity and finality to assessment orders which are finalised by the competent authority and if those orders are required to be revised, that this can only be done provided the aforesaid situation or ingredients are present and where by the law justifies such a course of action. ( 4 ) IT is on the basis of these submissions that the learned advocate has seriously attacked the validity and correctness of both notices, the first one as also the second one on behalf of the department. ( 4 ) IT is on the basis of these submissions that the learned advocate has seriously attacked the validity and correctness of both notices, the first one as also the second one on behalf of the department. The submission canvassed is that Court ought to ignore the position that in these cases, as was ultimately held, a considerable amount of entry tax was payable which the assessing officer did not levy and that therefore there was valid ground to exercise the revisional powers. The scrutiny of the notices does give us an indication that there was more than good ground for the appellants' learned advocate to have attacked them in so far as the notices are very loosely worded and if they are to be very strictly construed, they did not conform completely to the requirements. However, the Court in the present instance will have to take a broader view of the matter and we are not inclined on the facts of the present case to uphold the technicalities. ( 5 ) AS far as the merits are concerned, the appellants learned advocate submitted that it was unfortunate that in the reply that was put forward before the Revisional Authority, the substantial grounds on which the appellants claimed exemption and on the basis of which their claim was upheld had not been set out. He states that professionals who represented his clients were under the impression that they were not required to do so and that it was sufficient to reiterate the earlier position. Further more, he submits that what has been recorded in the record is that at the stage of the hearing, the Chartered Accountants did produce various documents before the revisional Authority and it is his grievance that if the Revisional Authority were to decide against his clients on the ground that Form 30 ought to have been produced or further more they were required to explain or produce better material in support of their claim, that they ought to have been asked to do so. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we need to record that this is a taxing statute and that under normal circumstance the incidence to, tax not only does arise but would be presumed vis-avis the appellants. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we need to record that this is a taxing statute and that under normal circumstance the incidence to, tax not only does arise but would be presumed vis-avis the appellants. This is a case where the appellants had claimed exemption on the premise that despite the provisions of law the tax was not leviable or liable to be collected from them. In this background the burden of proof lay completely and totally on the appellants and it is no argument that can be advanced on their behalf that merely because they discharged this burden to the satisfaction of the first authority that they could take the matter lightly and assume that they were not required to do anything better before the revisional Authority. The case had come up for revision and they were put on notice of the fact that the Revisional Authority proposes to impose the entry tax on them and under these circumstances, in our considered view, it was incumbent upon the appellants to have discharged the burden that the law places on them. A perusal of the orders that have been passed would indicate that the Revisional Authority has come to certain conclusions on the basis of documents which the appellants themselves produced as also on the basis of the fact that they did not produce Form 30 in respect of any of the transactions. The Appellants' learned advocate submits that to this extent there might have been some lapse but the result or the consequences are extremely harsh and grave to the appellants in so far as they have been visited with tax liabilities running into Lakhs of Rupees. In this background he submitted that he would produce the relevant documents for the perusal of this Court to support his contention that had these been considered by the Revisional Authorities, that the decision would have been otherwise. We have perused some of the invoices on which the learned advocate proposes to place reliance and we do not find that had these been produced before the Revisional Authority and had the appellants tendered the explanation before him which they have sought to do before this Court, that the decision could have been very different. We have perused some of the invoices on which the learned advocate proposes to place reliance and we do not find that had these been produced before the Revisional Authority and had the appellants tendered the explanation before him which they have sought to do before this Court, that the decision could have been very different. In effect, the result would be that the appellants are effectively asking for a second round or a denovo hearing before the Revisional Authority after a considerable lapse of time. Had this been a case in which the appellants were prevented from defending themselves or a case in which exparte order had been passed because of no fault of the appellants, the position would have been entirely different. ( 6 ) WHILE dealing with applications praying for a remand, this Court has taken a View earlier that a superior Court should be extremely slow in permitting a remand. The reasons are manifold and in those of the cases where a remand is inevitable because of grossly extenuating and valid grounds. A Court may be inclined to grant indulgence. That position would not hold good in a case where a party had an opportunity to contest the proceeding, more so where a party is represented by professionals the ground on which a remand can be asked for becomes weaker. Under normal circumstances since the appellants have been, afforded an opportunity and availed of it, we would have refused to remand the case. There is however one circumstance which in our considered view would tilt the case slightly in favour of the appellants and that is the solitary ground on which we are inclined to make an exemption. However this case should not create a wrong precedent. ( 7 ) THE fact remains that the Revisional Authority has erred as far as the first of the three assessing orders are concerned by referring to the requirement of Form 30 which was not correct as far as the year 1982-83 is concerned. This would render that order technically incorrect. Secondly, the Revisional Authority has drawn certain conclusions on the basis of a representative assessment of some of the documents that have been produced. This would render that order technically incorrect. Secondly, the Revisional Authority has drawn certain conclusions on the basis of a representative assessment of some of the documents that have been produced. In the light of our observations in respect of the show cause notices, we are of the view that in a case of the present type where the tax liability runs into several Lakhs of Rupees and where the earlier officer had taken a view that the appellants were exempted, the Revisional Authority ought to have brought it to the notice of the appellants that they would have to produce material of a certain category which is of specific evidentiary value before he could uphold that decision and there may be some justification in the submission canvassed by the appellants learned advocate that it was unfair on his part to take the appellants by surprise. ( 8 ) THE respondent's learned advocate had advanced a plea that the view taken by the Revisional authority is a possible view and that in the background of this case, this Court should not show indulgence and that the appellants are disqualified from asking for a remand. We have already indicated that in appropriate cases, from the point of view of doing complete justice, it is necessary that cases at all levels must be decided on merits and not by default. In the light of the documents that ought to have been produced, the submissions that could have been made and the other material which the appellants desire to produce before the Revisional Authority in support of their case, we do consider that the earlier decision cannot be treated as a final decision on merits. It is in this background alone that we are inclined to remand these cases but we have intimated to the appellants' learned advocate that we propose to do so only after putting the appellants to terms. ( 9 ) IT is in the light of this background that these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority are set aside. The appellants are directed to appear before the revisional Authority on 26. 2. 1996. They shall, on or before 15. 2. 1996 deposit a further sum of rs. 50,000/- with the Assessing Authority and shall produce proof of that deposit when they appear before the Revisional Authority. The impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority are set aside. The appellants are directed to appear before the revisional Authority on 26. 2. 1996. They shall, on or before 15. 2. 1996 deposit a further sum of rs. 50,000/- with the Assessing Authority and shall produce proof of that deposit when they appear before the Revisional Authority. This is a conditional order and in the facts and circumstances of the case it is made very clear to the appellants that since the Court has shown them a very special indulgence, that in the event of there being any default for whatsoever reason in depositing the amount within the prescribed time that they shall be disqualified from being granted any further hearing or indulgence in the proceeding. In the event of such default the appeals shall be treated as having been dismissed and the earlier orders confirmed but in the event of the appellants complying with the requirement as far as the amount of deposit is concerned, the Revisional Authority shall afford the appellants an opportunity of producing whatever material they desire in support of their contention. It is made clear that they shall tabulate this material under the heads which they propose to urge and that they shall ensure that they produce all evidence within a reasonable time so that these cases can be disposed of expeditiously. ( 10 ) IT is clarified that the direction to deposit further amount of Rs. 50,000/- is on the assumption that the appellants have complied with the direction to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/ -. If for any reason that has not been deposited that they shall do so immediately, before the matter is heard by the revisional Authority. The appeals accordingly succeed and stand disposed of. No order as to costs.