Revisional power over appellate orders requires prima facie revenue prejudice and merits-based scrutiny, not automatic reversal.

Rule 44-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, read with section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, recognises the Commissioner's revisional power over appellate orders under section 19, but only within a structured legal process. The Commissioner must first form a prima facie view that the order is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, issue notice, and then decide the matter on merits after hearing the affected party. The revisional power is therefore confined to a lawful merits-based examination and cannot operate as an automatic mechanism to nullify every appellate order in favour of the assessee. The rule and revisional scheme were treated as valid, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 44-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, read with section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, validly permits the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to revise an appellate order passed under section 19, and whether the revisional power can be exercised so as to nullify every appellate order in favour of the assessee merely because it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue.

Analysis: The appellate authority under section 19 is expressly subject to the revisional jurisdiction created by section 20, and rule 44-A only identifies the authorities that shall be treated as subordinate for that purpose. The power under section 20 is not automatic or mechanical: the Commissioner must first reach a prima facie satisfaction that the order proposed to be revised is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, and only thereafter can notice be issued and the matter examined on merits after hearing the affected party. The revisional power is therefore confined to a lawful reassessment of the order on the merits of each case, and cannot be understood as a mandate that every appellate order in favour of the assessee must be reversed without consideration of the facts and law.

Conclusion: The rule and the revisional scheme were held to be valid, and the challenge to the notice and the statutory framework failed.

---