Appellate preconditions and finality of assessment limit revision, while a heard appeal cannot later be dismissed for initial defect.

The proviso to section 24(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was a condition precedent to entertaining an appeal, so an appellate authority could decline it at the threshold for non-compliance. However, once the appeal had been admitted and argued on the assessee's denial of liability, the defect in the memorandum could not be used to dismiss the appeal in limine; that dismissal was not lawful. The assessment was treated as a single and indivisible order, and after appellate adjudication had reached finality, the Deputy Commissioner could not reopen or revise the same assessment. The revisional challenge to the refusal to entertain the appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Commissioner could dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the proviso to section 24(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 after having admitted the appeal and heard arguments. (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner and the revisional authority could interfere with the assessment after the appellate proceedings had culminated in a final order.

Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Commissioner could dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the proviso to section 24(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 after having admitted the appeal and heard arguments.

Analysis: The proviso to section 24(1) was treated as a condition precedent to the entertainment of the appeal. If the condition was absent, the appellate authority could refuse to entertain the appeal at the threshold. But once the appeal had been admitted and the matter had proceeded on the footing that the assessee denied liability, the earlier defect in the memorandum could not be treated as a jurisdictional ground for dismissing the appeal in limine. The dismissal at that stage was therefore inconsistent with law.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal by the Assistant Commissioner was not lawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the Deputy Commissioner and the revisional authority could interfere with the assessment after the appellate proceedings had culminated in a final order.

Analysis: The assessment was treated as a single and indivisible order. The statutory scheme gave the assessee appellate remedies, while revision was available to correct errors within the limits of the Act. Once the Appellate Tribunal had disposed of the appeal, the original assessment stood superseded, and after the High Court's final order the assessment had attained finality. In that situation, the Deputy Commissioner could not reopen or revise the same assessment, and the revisional authority was not barred from examining the legality of the refusal to entertain the appeal.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment after it had been finally dealt with in appeal and revision, and the revisional objection to the refusal to entertain the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order dismissing the appeal was held to be contrary to law, but the broader challenge to the assessment could not survive because the assessment had already attained finality under the statutory appellate process. The petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment under the Act is a single and indivisible order, and once it has been superseded by appellate adjudication and has reached finality, the revisional authority cannot reopen it, while the appellate authority cannot invoke a pre-condition to defeat an appeal after the matter has proceeded on merits.

---