Legislative commodity classification controlled tax rate for peanuts; revisional interference was improper on the amended schedule.

An amended sales tax schedule treated peanuts separately from groundnuts for the period from 1 April 1983 to 17 November 1983 and prescribed a lower rate for peanuts. Although the two commodities were botanically the same produce, the legislative classification controlled tax treatment during that period, so turnover supported by records and a market committee certificate could qualify for the lower rate. The Commissioner could not invoke revisional jurisdiction on the mistaken view that application of the amended rate was erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue. The appellate order was restored and the assessee retained the lower tax rate for the specified period.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the period from 1 April 1983 to 17 November 1983, peanuts and groundnuts were to be treated as distinct commodities carrying different rates of tax under the amended schedule entry, and whether the Commissioner could invoke revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the appellate order granting the lower rate was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.

Analysis: Before 1 April 1983, the schedule entry treated groundnut and peanut together at the same rate. By the amendment effective from 1 April 1983, the Legislature split the entry and prescribed a lower rate for peanuts for the relevant period. Although botanically groundnut and peanut were the same produce, the amended statutory classification showed a legislative intent to treat them differently for tax purposes during that period. The appellate authority relied on the assessee's records, invoices, and the market committee certificate to conclude that the turnover relating to peanuts qualified for the lower rate. The Commissioner therefore proceeded on an premise that the appellate order was erroneous, when in fact it reflected the amended statutory scheme; revisional jurisdiction could not be assumed merely because a lower rate prescribed by the Legislature was applied.

Conclusion: The order of the appellate authority was and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise it under section 22-A.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee retained the benefit of the lower tax rate for the specified period, with the appellate order restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Legislature, by amendment, distinctly classifies a commodity for a limited period and prescribes a differential rate, the taxing authority must give effect to that classification, and revisional power cannot be exercised on the mistaken assumption that such application is erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.

---