Revisional power and limitation principles upheld where no prior effective revision existed and revenue prejudice justified interference.

The revisional order was upheld because the record did not show any prior effective revision that would make it a second revision, and the materials relied on were treated as internal correspondence rather than a concluded order. Limitation was not a bar where the revisional order was passed within the prescribed period and service followed within a reasonable time thereafter; a delay of about five weeks in service was not treated as fatal. Revisional interference was also justified because the appellate order, despite being in the nature of a remand, tended to grant exemption contrary to the Government's clarification, thereby prejudicially affecting the revenue and attracting revisional power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner's revisional order amounted to a second revision and was therefore impermissible; (ii) whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under the revisional provision; (iii) whether the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner prejudicially affected the revenue so as to justify revisional interference.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner's revisional order amounted to a second revision and was therefore impermissible.

Analysis: The record did not disclose any prior effective order by the Additional Commissioner accepting the appellate order or dropping revisional proceedings. The materials relied on by the assessee were treated as internal correspondence and not as a concluded revisional order. On the record, the impugned order was the only revisional order passed.

Conclusion: The contention of second revision was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under the revisional provision.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the assessee and held that the statutory period requires the revisional order to be passed within the prescribed time, while service of the copy must be within a reasonable time. Since the revisional order was made within the limitation period and the delay in service was only about five weeks, it was not treated as abnormal or vitiating.

Conclusion: The objection based on limitation was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner prejudicially affected the revenue so as to justify revisional interference.

Analysis: The appellate order, though in the nature of remand, contained a direction tending to grant exemption on the basis of an earlier departmental order, notwithstanding the Government clarification that paddy dealers were not entitled to such exemption. The direction was considered capable of causing loss to the revenue, bringing the case within the revisional power.

Conclusion: Revisional interference was held to be justified.

Final Conclusion: The special appeal failed in all material respects, and the revisional order restoring the assessment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power may be exercised where the subordinate order is prejudicial to the revenue, and limitation is satisfied if the revisional order is made within time and served within a reasonable period thereafter.

---