Revisional jurisdiction and doctrine of merger: revision failed where the appellate order never decided the additional-tax issue.

A revisional authority under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act can examine only the legality or propriety of the order on the material already on record, and it cannot revise an issue that was not decided in the appellate order. Here, the appellate authority dealt only with the rice turnover rate and did not adjudicate the additional-tax issue under section 5-A, so revision on that point was not maintainable. For limitation, the revisional order related to an assessment order and section 20(3) applied; the original assessment order did not merge in the appellate order on the additional-tax question because the appellate subject-matter was narrower. The State's revision therefore failed and the order setting aside the revision was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner's revisional order under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was barred by limitation under section 20(3), and whether the doctrine of merger prevented limitation from running from the original assessment order.

Analysis: The assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was made on inter-State sales of rice and was later carried in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner only dealt with the rate applicable to the rice turnover and did not decide the question of additional tax under section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The revisional power under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is confined to examining the legality or propriety of the order on the material already on record, and the revisional authority cannot travel beyond that record. Since the Assistant Commissioner had not adjudicated the additional-tax question, no illegality or impropriety arose in that order on that issue, and the condition for revision was not satisfied. On limitation, the order revised by the Deputy Commissioner was an order in relation to assessment, so section 20(3) applied. The doctrine of merger did not apply because the subject-matter of the revision before the Assistant Commissioner was limited and did not include the additional-tax issue; therefore, the original assessment order did not merge in the appellate order for the purpose of computing limitation.

Conclusion: The revisional order was without jurisdiction on the merits of revision and was also time-barred under section 20(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Final Conclusion: The State's revision failed, and the Tribunal's setting aside of the Deputy Commissioner's order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional authority under the sales tax law is empowered to examine only the legality or propriety of the order on the existing record, it cannot revise an issue not decided in the appellate order, and limitation for revision of an order in relation to assessment runs from service of the original assessment order unless a true merger has occurred on the very subject-matter revised.

---