Revisional jurisdiction over remand orders can extend to appellate remands, especially where a fresh hearing on merits remains available.

Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act permits revision of an Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order passed under section 31(3), including an order of remand. The fact that the order is discretionary or directs further hearing does not remove it from revisional scrutiny. Revisional interference was also upheld because the assessee still had an effective opportunity to contest the seized account books, slips, notice, and revised assessments before the appellate authority. A remand that preserves a fresh hearing on merits does not warrant restoration merely on a complaint of want of opportunity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under section 34 to revise an order of remand passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 31(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the revisional interference with the remand order was justified in the circumstances, including the complaint of want of reasonable opportunity.

Issue (i): Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under section 34 to revise an order of remand passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 31(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 34 expressly makes revisable the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed under section 31(3). The nature of the order as one of remand or as a discretionary order does not take it outside the revisional reach of the Board when it is an order under section 31(3). The revisional power therefore extends to interference with such an order.

Conclusion: The Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to revise the remand order.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional interference with the remand order was justified in the circumstances, including the complaint of want of reasonable opportunity.

Analysis: The assessee had already been inspected in relation to the seized account books and slips, and the Board held that the matter could still be effectively examined by the appellate authority on merits with full opportunity to the assessee. The order under revision did not finally prejudice the assessee's case because the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was directed to hear the appeal afresh and give adequate opportunity on the objections raised against the notice and revised assessments.

Conclusion: The Board's interference was justified and the remand order did not call for restoration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the Board's order was sustained, leaving the assessee to pursue his objections before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of remand passed by an appellate authority under the revisional provision applicable to that order is amenable to revision, and where a fresh hearing on merits remains available, interference on the ground of want of opportunity is not warranted.

---