Revisional jurisdiction under sales tax law extends where the Tribunal did not decide the section 5-A levy issue.

Section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act bars revisional interference only on an issue that was actually the subject of appeal before, or decided by, the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's earlier common order concerned the rate of tax on rice under section 5(2)(a) and item 66(b), not the additional levy under section 5-A. Because the applicability of section 5-A to turnover exceeding the prescribed threshold was not before the Tribunal, the Commissioner did not reopen a matter already decided. The revisional order was therefore within jurisdiction and valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was barred by section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act from revising the Assistant Commissioner's order on the rate of tax, when the applicability of section 5-A was not an issue before the Tribunal.

Analysis: Section 20(2-A) prohibits revisional interference only in respect of an issue or question that was the subject-matter of an appeal before, or was decided by, the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's common order dealt with the rate of tax on rice in the context of the earlier decision in Oruganti Venkateswarlu's case, but that decision concerned the rate under section 5(2)(a) and item 66(b) of the First Schedule, not the additional levy under section 5-A. Where the assessee's total turnover exceeded the threshold prescribed in section 5-A, the question whether the reduced rate applied to such turnover was not before the Tribunal. The Commissioner therefore did not reopen an issue already decided by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The revisional order was within jurisdiction and was valid.

---