Revisional power cannot indirectly reopen a time-barred assessment through a consequential implementation order.

Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 permits revision only of the specific orders it enumerates. A consequential order passed under rule 32(2) to give effect to a Deputy Commissioner's order under section 32 was not an independent revisable order and therefore fell outside the revisional power. Even if that later order were treated as revisable, the Board of Revenue could not use it to indirectly reopen the original assessment order after the five-year limitation period had expired. The revision was held to be without jurisdiction and time-barred, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to revise a consequential order passed by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer giving effect to the Deputy Commissioner's order, and whether such revisional power could be exercised after the expiry of the prescribed five-year period.

Analysis: Section 34(1) authorises revision only of the specific orders enumerated therein. The order dated 22 September 1971 was not an independent order under the Act but a consequential order passed under rule 32(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 to implement the Deputy Commissioner's order under section 32. On that basis alone, it was outside the revisional ambit of section 34. Even on the assumption that the consequential order could be treated as revisable, the Board could not, by targeting that later order, reopen the original assessment order of 26 December 1969 after the expiry of five years. The attempted revision was thus an impermissible indirect exercise of power against an earlier order that had already become time-barred.

Conclusion: The Board of Revenue lacked jurisdiction to make the impugned revision, and the revision was also barred by limitation. The assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority can act only within the precise statutory field of revision and cannot, by revising a consequential implementation order, indirectly reopen an earlier order after the prescribed limitation period has expired.

---