Doctrine of merger does not extend revisional limitation where the disputed issue was not appealable by the department.

The doctrine of merger was held inapplicable where the matter sought to be revised could not have formed the subject-matter of the appeal. Because only the assessee had a right of appeal and the department could not seek enhancement, the liability as an unlicensed dealer was not merged into the appellate order for revision purposes. The Court held that revisional limitation had to run from the original assessment order, not from the appellate order, and the broader appellate order could not enlarge the statute's revisional power. The proposed revision was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue could revise the assessment within four years from the date of the appellate order on the basis that the original assessment had merged in the appellate order, or whether limitation ran from the date of the original assessment order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.

Analysis: The Act contained specific provisions for appeal and revision and prescribed different limitation periods for revisional action. The general doctrine of merger was held to be inapplicable where the matter sought to be revised could not have formed the subject-matter of the appeal before the appellate authority. The assessee alone had a right of appeal, and the department had no right to seek enhancement before the appellate authority. Since the question of liability as an unlicensed dealer was not and could not be the subject-matter of the appeal, the original order did not merge in the appellate order for the purpose of revision. The Court also held that the existence of a wider appellate order could not enlarge the scope of the revisional power beyond the statute.

Conclusion: The Board of Revenue had to compute limitation from the date of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's order, and the proposed revision was out of time. The contention based on merger failed.

---