Revisional jurisdiction under sales tax law cannot be used to impose time-barred levies or override operative appellate orders.

Section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 bars revision only where the same issue has been decided in relation to the relevant assessment; a Tribunal ruling for another assessment year does not create a res judicata bar, so revisional jurisdiction was not excluded on that ground. However, surcharge under section 6-B could not be imposed by revising the Deputy Commissioner's order when surcharge had already been levied in reassessment and the appellate order setting aside that reassessment remained operative. The Commissioner also could not use revision of the Deputy Commissioner's order to levy additional tax under section 5-A after the original assessment had become time-barred for revision. The revision notice was therefore interdicted on jurisdictional grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 barred the Commissioner from initiating revision when the Tribunal had decided the same issue in another assessment year. (ii) Whether surcharge under section 6-B could be levied by revising the Deputy Commissioner's order when a reassessment order had already levied surcharge and the appellate order setting aside that reassessment was still in force. (iii) Whether the Commissioner could, by revising the Deputy Commissioner's order, direct levy of additional tax under section 5-A when that levy had not been part of the Deputy Commissioner's revision notice and the original assessment had long become time-barred for revision.

Issue (i): Whether section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 barred the Commissioner from initiating revision when the Tribunal had decided the same issue in another assessment year.

Analysis: The bar under section 20(2-A) applies only to an issue or question that is the subject-matter of an appeal before, or has been decided on appeal by, the Tribunal in relation to the relevant assessment. A decision on a different assessment year does not operate as res judicata in tax matters, because each assessment year is a separate unit. The Tribunal's decision in another year therefore did not denude the Commissioner of revisional jurisdiction in the present case.

Conclusion: The objection based on section 20(2-A) failed and the revision was not barred on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether surcharge under section 6-B could be levied by revising the Deputy Commissioner's order when a reassessment order had already levied surcharge and the appellate order setting aside that reassessment was still in force.

Analysis: Once the reassessment order had already levied surcharge, it was unnecessary and beyond jurisdiction for the Deputy Commissioner to revisit the original assessment to impose the same levy. The appellate order setting aside the reassessment was operative, and so long as that order stood, surcharge could not be demanded merely by revising the Deputy Commissioner's order. Any further levy would require appropriate proceedings against the appellate order itself.

Conclusion: The proposed levy of surcharge through revision of the Deputy Commissioner's order was without jurisdiction and could not proceed.

Issue (iii): Whether the Commissioner could, by revising the Deputy Commissioner's order, direct levy of additional tax under section 5-A when that levy had not been part of the Deputy Commissioner's revision notice and the original assessment had long become time-barred for revision.

Analysis: The omission to levy additional tax, if any, attached to the original assessment and not to the Deputy Commissioner's dropping of the revision on surcharge. Since the period for revising the original assessment had expired, the Commissioner could not indirectly achieve what he was barred from doing directly. A revision of the Deputy Commissioner's order could not lawfully be used as a vehicle to impose a fresh and time-barred levy of additional tax.

Conclusion: The proposal to levy additional tax under section 5-A was beyond the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revision notice was interdicted, and the writ petition succeeded on the jurisdictional objections raised by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 20(2-A) does not create a res judicata bar across different assessment years, and a revisional authority cannot indirectly impose a levy by revising an order where the proper source of authority or the limitation period has already been exhausted.

---