Revisional jurisdiction barred once appellate remedy is invoked under the sales tax statute, unlike a narrower appeal-pendency restriction.

Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is explained as imposing an absolute bar on revisional jurisdiction once an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The text states that the order cannot be split into separate parts for revision and that the existence of appellate proceedings prevents parallel revision. It also distinguishes this position from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, where the statutory bar applies only during pendency of the appeal and may revive after disposal. The note therefore turns on differing statutory language and its effect on revisional power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after the order had been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (ii) Whether the earlier decision on the Sales Tax Act conflicted with the decision under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 so as to require reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after the order had been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: Section 34(1) empowered the Board of Revenue to revise orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but section 34(2)(b) imposed a restriction where the order had been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or a revision in the High Court. The statute treated the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as a single order and did not permit it to be split into separate items for the purpose of revision. Once an effective appeal had been preferred to the Tribunal, the revisional power stood barred. The Tribunal's power to enhance assessment in an appeal also supported the absence of any need for a parallel revisional power.

Conclusion: The Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to revise the order under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 once the order had been made the subject of appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decision on the Sales Tax Act conflicted with the decision under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 so as to require reconsideration.

Analysis: The two enactments used materially different language. Under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, the bar on revision operated only while the appeal was pending before the Tribunal, so the revisional power revived after disposal of the appeal. By contrast, section 34(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 created an absolute bar once the order had been made the subject of appeal. Because the statutory language differed, the two decisions turned on different legal regimes and did not conflict.

Conclusion: There was no conflict requiring reconsideration, and the earlier Sales Tax decision remained good law.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was without jurisdiction, the assessee succeeded, and the Board's order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute makes revision impermissible if an order has been made the subject of an appeal, the revisional authority loses power once an effective appeal is filed and the order cannot be dissected into separate items for revision; a different result follows only where the statutory bar is confined to the pendency of the appeal.

---