Revisional power cannot overlap a pending appeal when suppression and turnover estimation are already in dispute.

Section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act permits suo motu revision only on a point not already decided in appeal or revision, and the power is exceptional. Where the assessee's appeal already challenged a best judgment assessment based on alleged suppression and estimation of turnover, the same subject-matter was pending before the appellate authority, so the Deputy Commissioner could not revise the order on a different view of the quantum of suppression. A mere difference of opinion on estimation did not amount to a revisable error prejudicial to the Revenue. The revisional order was therefore illegal, and the pending appeal was directed to be decided by the competent authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise suo motu revisional power under section 35(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 during the pendency of the assessee's appeal when the very question of suppression and estimation of turnover was already in issue in that appeal.

Analysis: Section 35(2A) permits revision on a point not decided in an appeal or revision, and the power is exceptional in nature. The Court applied the earlier interpretation that such power may be exercised during pendency of appellate proceedings only where the particular point is not likely to arise for decision before the appellate authority. On the facts, the assessment was a best judgment assessment based on inspections and suppression, and the appeal itself challenged the additions made on that very basis. The issue before the appellate authority was therefore the correctness of the estimation founded on suppression, so the same subject-matter was already in appeal. The Deputy Commissioner's interference rested on a different view as to the quantum of suppression, which was not a separate point outside the appeal. The Court also held that the revisional jurisdiction must be exercised only where the order is prejudicial to the Revenue in the sense of being erroneous in a manner affecting revenue administration, and a mere difference of opinion on estimation does not justify revision.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to invoke section 35(2A) in the circumstances, and the revisional order was illegal. The assessee succeeds, and the matter is sent back for disposal of the pending appeal by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power under section 35(2A) cannot be used during pendency of an appeal when the same issue is already the subject of that appeal, and a mere difference in estimation of turnover does not by itself amount to a revisable error prejudicial to the Revenue.

---