Revisional power may be used despite a pending second appeal where the statute contains no express bar.

The revisional power conferred by section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 may be exercised in respect of an appellate order passed by a subordinate authority even while a second appeal against that order is pending before the Tribunal. The statutory appeal scheme under section 55 and the revisional jurisdiction under section 57 operate in separate fields, and no implied restriction arises merely because appellate proceedings remain pending. In the absence of an express bar, the pendency of the second appeal does not suspend the effectiveness of the order under challenge or prevent the Commissioner from initiating revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could exercise revisional power under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 in respect of an order passed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner when a second appeal against that order was already pending before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The appellate scheme under section 55 confers rights of appeal and second appeal and makes appellate orders final subject to sections 57, 61 and 62. Section 57 separately confers revisional power on the Commissioner in respect of orders passed by subordinate authorities, including orders passed in appeal, and does not expressly exclude exercise of that power merely because a further appeal is pending before the Tribunal. The Court held that a right of appeal is a statutory right, but the same statute may lawfully impose limits on that right and on the revisional power. It further held that no conflict arises between sections 55 and 57 requiring an implied restriction, because the revisional and appellate jurisdictions operate in their own fields and the pendency of an appeal does not suspend the effectiveness of the order under challenge. The absence of an express bar in section 57, coupled with the statutory scheme, showed that the Commissioner was not precluded from acting during the pendency of the second appeal.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was competent to invoke revision under section 57 despite the pendency of the assessee's second appeal before the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional notices and the Tribunal's order failed, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory prohibition, revisional power conferred on a superior authority may be exercised even while an appeal against the same order is pending, and courts will not infer a restriction merely to preserve appellate proceedings.

---