Court rules Commissioner cannot revise appeal orders under section 22; appellate authority lacks automatic appeal disposal power.

The High Court held that the Commissioner cannot revise orders passed in appeal under section 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, as the finality of the order does not include revision under section 22-B. Additionally, the Court determined that an appellate authority, even if appointed under section 3, does not automatically have the authority to entertain or dispose of appeals unless specifically named in the rules under section 22(1). The Court answered both issues in the negative, directing the Commissioner to bear the costs of the reference, including a hearing fee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the revisional jurisdiction extends to orders passed in appeal under section 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947Rs.
2. Whether an authority prescribed under section 22(1) of the Act is a person appointed under section 3 to assist the Commissioner of Sales TaxRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The High Court analyzed the provisions of sections 22, 22-A, and 22-B of the Act to determine the scope of revisional jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the finality of an order passed in first appeal is subject to review, revision, and reference, as specified in the Act. The Court applied the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, stating that if finality is not made subject to revision under section 22-B, then such revision cannot be allowed. The Court held that the Commissioner cannot revise orders passed in appeal under section 22 of the Act, as the finality of the order does not include revision under section 22-B.

Issue 2:
Regarding the second question, the Court examined the appointment of persons under section 3 and the authority prescribed under section 22(1) of the Act. It concluded that a person appointed under section 3 does not automatically have the authority to entertain or dispose of appeals unless specifically named in the rules under section 22(1). The Court clarified that the power to hear an appeal is derived from the rules framed under section 22(1) and not solely from the appointment under section 3. Therefore, an appellate authority, even if appointed under section 3, does not fall under the category of "any person appointed under section 3 to assist him" as mentioned in section 22-B of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in the negative and directed the Commissioner to bear the costs of the reference, including a hearing fee. The Court's decision clarified the limitations on revisional jurisdiction and the scope of authority prescribed under the Act, providing a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions and principles applied in reaching its judgment.

---