Revisional jurisdiction requires scrutiny of the appellate order; a non-speaking revisional order cannot stand.

Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only after examining whether the order sought to be revised suffers from illegality, impropriety or procedural irregularity. The character of a contract must be determined from its terms and surrounding circumstances, specifically whether it is for sale of a specified movable article or for work and labour. A revisional order that merely affirms the original assessment without addressing the appellate authority's reasoning does not reflect lawful exercise of that power and cannot stand; the revisional order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order setting aside the appellate authority's decision was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The governing test in a dispute of this nature is whether the agreement is for the sale and purchase of a specified movable article or for work and labour, the character of the transaction being determined from the terms of the contract and the surrounding circumstances. A revisional authority can interfere with the appellate order only if it identifies illegality, impropriety, or procedural irregularity in that order. An order that merely approves the original assessment without examining the appellate authority's reasoning does not show lawful exercise of revisional power.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable and was rightly set aside; the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only by examining the legality or propriety of the order sought to be revised, and a revisional order that fails to consider the appellate order on that basis cannot stand.

---