Revisional jurisdiction cannot rely on later-collected materials to upset an appellate finding under sales tax law.

In revisional jurisdiction under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, interference must rest on materials already on the record before the appellate authority. The revisional authority could not rely on reports obtained after the appellate order or on evidence collected behind the assessee's back to conclude that the assessee was a dealer in groundnut. Since the revision was founded on later-collected extraneous material rather than the existing record, the revisional order was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the authority could rely on materials gathered after the appellate order and not available on the record before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: The appellate authority had set aside the revision and held that the assessee was engaged only in decorticating groundnut and was not a dealer in groundnut. The revisional authority interfered on the basis of reports obtained subsequently, long after the appellate order, to conclude that the assessee was a dealer in groundnut. Revision under section 34 could be exercised only on the basis of materials that were already on record when the appellate order was passed. Subsequent materials collected behind the back of the assessee could not be treated as a valid foundation for revisional interference.

Conclusion: The revisional order based on later-collected extraneous materials was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority cannot found interference on materials not available on the record before the subordinate authority and cannot use subsequently gathered evidence to revise an appellate order.

---