Appellate jurisdiction under sales tax law is limited to the dealer's appeal and cannot reopen unappealed exempt turnover.

The writ petition failed for assessment year 1970-71 because the dealer had an adequate statutory revisional remedy under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and no sufficient reason was shown for bypassing it. The appellate authority under section 9 was held confined to the subject-matter of the dealer's appeal and could not reopen turnover already held exempt by the assessing authority when that turnover was not under appeal. Reopening the exempt turnover would amount to assuming revisional or suo motu power not vested in the appellate forum. The impugned notice for the later assessment years was therefore quashed, while the earlier year was left undisturbed on the ground of alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was liable to fail for the assessment year 1970-71 because the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy by way of revision under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to reopen the taxability of turnover which had been held exempt by the assessing authority and which was not the subject-matter of the dealer's appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was liable to fail for the assessment year 1970-71 because the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy by way of revision under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The petitioner had a statutory revisional remedy against the assessment order and had in fact used that remedy in earlier years. No sufficient reason was shown for bypassing the revisional remedy in respect of the assessment year 1970-71.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for the assessment year 1970-71 and failed against the petitioner on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to reopen the taxability of turnover which had been held exempt by the assessing authority and which was not the subject-matter of the dealer's appeal.

Analysis: The appellate power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment order was construed in the setting of the Act as a whole. The scheme distinguished the dealer's right of appeal under section 9 from the Commissioner's revisional remedy under section 10, and the rules required the memorandum of appeal to state the relief prayed for. The appellate jurisdiction was therefore confined to the subject-matter of the appeal preferred by the dealer and could not extend to unappealed portions of the assessment or confer a revisional or suo motu power on the appellate authority. Reopening the exempt turnover would duplicate the revisional jurisdiction reserved to the revising authority and would be outside the appellate authority's competence.

Conclusion: The appellate authority had no jurisdiction to issue notice for bringing the exempt turnover of photographs to tax when that turnover was not under appeal.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in part. The impugned notice for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 was quashed, while the challenge for the earlier year failed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is confined to the subject-matter of the dealer's appeal and cannot reopen unappealed portions of the assessment by exercising a power akin to revision or suo motu review.

---