Merger doctrine bars a revision challenge where the earlier appellate order was never further appealed and rehearing was already directed.

A merger-based objection could not be raised in revision where the department had not filed a second appeal against the earlier appellate order allowing the assessee's section 22 application and directing rehearing on merits. The earlier order had already dealt with the assessment dispute, so its finality could not be indirectly challenged through revision. On that basis, the revisional court found no error of law in the Tribunal's order and declined interference, leaving the departmental challenge unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the department could, in revision, challenge the remand made in proceedings under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act when it had not filed a second appeal against the earlier appellate order allowing the assessee's application and directing rehearing on merits.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had already allowed the assessee's application under section 22 and directed the Sales Tax Officer to rehear the matter on merits. No second appeal was filed by the department against that order. In these circumstances, the objection based on merger of the original assessment order into the appellate order could not be entertained in the revision. The Tribunal's order therefore did not suffer from any error of law.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable on the department's merger-based challenge and the finding went against the assessee's objection.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court upheld the Tribunal's order and declined to interfere, leaving the departmental challenge unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that does not challenge an appellate order by the appropriate further appeal cannot later raise, in revision, a contention that directly assails the finality and effect of that unchallenged order.

---