Belated, rejected appeal does not bar revision where only an effective appeal triggers the statutory restriction.

A time-barred appeal rejected in limine with a delay-condonation petition does not amount to an order being "made the subject of an appeal" for the purpose of the bar on revision under section 34(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The revisional bar applies only where an appeal is effectively before the appellate authority; a belated and non-admitted appeal cannot defeat revisional jurisdiction. The construction avoids allowing an assessee to nullify revision by filing an ineffective appeal and waiting for limitation to expire. The Board's revisional power was therefore held to remain available and was validly exercised.

---

---

Issues: Whether a belated appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal, accompanied by a petition to condone delay but dismissed in limine, amounts to the order being made the subject of an appeal so as to bar revision under section 34(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 34 is subject to distinct bars, including expiry of appeal time, pendency of an appeal or revision, and lapse of four years. A time-barred appeal which is not admitted and is rejected with the condonation petition does not become an effective appeal for the purpose of section 34(2)(b). Construing the provision otherwise would enable an assessee to defeat revision merely by filing an ineffective belated appeal and waiting out the period of limitation, which would make the revisional power nugatory. The phrase "made the subject of an appeal" therefore contemplates an appeal that is effectively before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The belated and rejected appeal did not bar the Board's revisional jurisdiction; the revision was validly exercised.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of a statutory bar phrased as an order having been "made the subject of an appeal," only an effective appeal admitted for consideration counts, and a time-barred appeal rejected in limine does not attract the bar.

---