Revisional jurisdiction and partial relief: an assessee may appeal against the adverse part of a revisional order.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act was treated as a power to correct the assessment and substitute the lawful order, not as a discretionary favour. Because the assessee received only partial relief in revision, it remained a person aggrieved and could appeal under section 22 against the adverse part of the revisional order. The Appellate Tribunal should therefore have entertained the challenge rather than rejecting it for want of an appeal from the original assessment. On the substantive tax issue, the assessee was entitled to exemption on sales of cotton yarn for the entire period from 1 April 1958 to 31 March 1959.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and granted only partial relief, the assessee could appeal under section 22 against the part of the revisional order that denied full relief; and whether the assessee was entitled to exemption from tax on sales of cotton yarn for the entire period from 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 21 was held to be one exercised for the purpose of correcting the assessment and substituting the proper order for the incorrect one. In such a proceeding the entire matter is open, and the revising authority must make an order conforming to the statute. The appellate remedy under section 22 lies from every order made by the Deputy Commissioner under section 21 to a person aggrieved by it. Since the assessee obtained only partial relief, it remained aggrieved by the portion of the revisional order that failed to grant the full exemption due under law, and could validly challenge that part before the Appellate Tribunal. The refusal of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal on the ground that no appeal had been filed from the original assessment was erroneous. On the merits, the earlier decisions establishing that the relevant tax position continued to govern the liability meant that the assessee was entitled to exemption for the whole period in question.

Conclusion: The assessee had a right to appeal against the incomplete exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and the Tribunal ought to have considered that challenge. The assessee was entitled to exemption from tax on all sales of cotton yarn for the entire period from 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the assessment was directed to be modified so as to grant the assessee the full exemption claimed on cotton yarn sales for the relevant period.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee who is granted only partial relief in revision may appeal against the part of the revisional order that remains adverse, because revisional jurisdiction is meant to correct the assessment by substituting the lawful order, not to confer a discretionary favour.

---