Appellate finality and revisional limits: appellate orders were not revisable, and appellate authorities derived power from the rules.

The High Court examined the scope of revisional power under section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and held that an appellate order was not subject to revision where the Act attached finality to first and second appeal orders except for specified exceptions. Applying expressio unius est exclusio alterius, it treated the omission of revision from those exceptions as deliberate. The Court also held that an authority prescribed under section 22(1) and rule 53 derived appellate jurisdiction from the rule-making scheme and was not merely a person appointed under section 3 to assist the Commissioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner's revisional power under section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 extended to an order passed in appeal under section 22 of that Act; (ii) whether an authority prescribed under section 22(1) read with rule 53 was a person appointed under section 3 of the Act to assist the Commissioner.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner's revisional power under section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 extended to an order passed in appeal under section 22 of that Act.

Analysis: The finality attached by section 22(5) to orders passed in first appeal or second appeal was held to be subject only to the specific exceptions mentioned in the Act. The absence of any reference to revision under section 22-B was treated as significant. Applying the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court held that an appellate order was not open to revision under section 22-B. The structure of section 22-A, which expressly restricted revision where appeal was available or pending, also supported the conclusion that section 22-B was intended to operate only where no appeal had been filed.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction under section 22-B did not extend to orders passed in appeal under section 22 of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether an authority prescribed under section 22(1) read with rule 53 was a person appointed under section 3 of the Act to assist the Commissioner.

Analysis: Section 3 dealt with appointments to assist the Commissioner, whereas section 22 contemplated an appellate authority prescribed by the rules. The Court held that a person does not become an appellate authority merely because of appointment under section 3. The capacity to hear and decide appeals flowed from the rules made under section 22(1), not from the appointment under section 3. An appellate authority therefore acted in that capacity under the appellate scheme and not as a person appointed under section 3 to assist the Commissioner.

Conclusion: An authority prescribed under section 22(1) was not a person appointed under section 3 to assist the Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered against the revenue, and the reference was disposed of accordingly with costs awarded against the Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legislature makes the finality of an appellate order subject only to specified exceptions, a revisional power cannot be implied to cover appellate orders unless that power is expressly included within those exceptions; and an appellate authority derives its appellate jurisdiction from the relevant rule-making provision, not from its appointment as an to assist the Commissioner.

---