JUDGMENT AND ORDER : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment dated 8.9.2011 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati, whereby it has dismissed petitioner's Case No. 13 STA/09 affirming the order as passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes for the assessment year 1993-94. 2. The petitioner is Government of India Undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. During the relevant period, it was also registered as dealer under both Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the business of refining crude petroleum as well as selling and distribution of petroleum products throughout the country. 3. In the year 1993-94, the petitioner appeared before the assessing authority-Superintendent of Taxes and submitted books of accounts with relevant documents in support of its return along with copies of ‘C’ Forms in original. During that period, the usual practice was to first enter into an agreement for sale of petroleum products and then ‘C’ Form were procured in original before the transaction actually took place on the basis of agreement and thereafter the actual transaction of sale was made on the basis of ‘C’ Forms. The Superintendent of Taxes, vide order dated 17.7.2002, approved the original assessment, after examining books of accounts and documents including ‘C’ forms, which were submitted in original. The Superintendent of Taxes also allowed exemption in respect of export sale after due examination of papers and documents submitted in support thereof. The Superintendent of Taxes, however, treated sales amounting to Rs. 72,98,21,045/- to have been made to unregistered dealers on the ground of failure to furnish ‘C’ forms in support of the same. Similarly, he also rejected the export sale amounting to Rs. 2,23,26,993/-. Aggrieved with the rejection of sales and treating some of the sales to unregistered dealers, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes against the order dated 17.7.2002 4. But the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the petitioner and after making re-assessment, vide order dated 29.10.2008, issued a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 10,18,66,093/-. 5. But the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes initiated suo motu revisional proceedings against the petitioner and after making re-assessment, vide order dated 29.10.2008, issued a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 10,18,66,093/-. 5. Aggrieved with the initiation of suo motu revisional proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes and issuance of demand notice, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue and raised serious contentious issues pertaining to jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes to initiate suo motu revisional proceedings and the validity of demand notice issued by him. The petitioner also averred that since the genuineness of sale transactions to the registered dealers were not questioned, the demand notice could not have been issued merely on some defects in the ‘C’ forms. 6. The Assam Board of Revenue, on 30.6.2011, in the absence of counsel for the petitioner, closed the case for judgment and after two months, vide impugned judgment dated 8.9.2011, dismissed the same on merits. It is in this backdrop, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. As noted above, the petitioner is Government of India Undertaking and a demand notice of more than Rs. 10 crores has been issued against it and this has been done pursuant to initiation of suo motu revisional proceedings. The record reveals that petitioner raised serious contentious issues before the Assam Board of Revenue against jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes to initiate suo motu revisional proceedings in the fact situation of case and also validity of the demand notice of more than Rs. 10 crores. Another question raised by the petitioner was that whether due to defects in ‘C’ forms, transaction of sales to registered dealers can be held as sales to unregistered dealers. We are of the considered view that before deciding the issues raised against the petitioner on merits, the Assam Board of Revenue in all fairness ought to have heard the petitioner, more particularly, when after closing the case on 30.6.2011, the Assam Board of Revenue itself decided the same after more than two months. Apparently, the petitioner has been deprived of fair opportunity of hearing by the Assam Board of Revenue. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment dated 8.9.2011 and remand the matter to the Assam Board of Revenue for its decision afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Apparently, the petitioner has been deprived of fair opportunity of hearing by the Assam Board of Revenue. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment dated 8.9.2011 and remand the matter to the Assam Board of Revenue for its decision afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. The petition is allowed to the above extent, but with cost of Rs. 2000/- payable by the petitioner for not appearing before the Assam Board of Revenue on 30.6.2011 when the case was called for hearing.