Revisional jurisdiction barred where Tribunal findings attained finality and the same turnover issue was already decided on appeal.

Revisional notices cannot be sustained where the Tribunal's order has already attained finality and is no longer pending in revision. The Tribunal had treated the disputed turnovers as branch transfers not liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the proposed revision proceedings were time-barred with delay condonation refused. Section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act also bars revision on any issue already decided by the Appellate Tribunal under section 21, so the same turnovers could not be reopened in revision. The impugned notices were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether revisional notices could be sustained on the assumption that the Tribunal's order was still pending in tax revision before the High Court; (ii) whether revisional power could be exercised in respect of issues already decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (i): whether revisional notices could be sustained on the assumption that the Tribunal's order was still pending in tax revision before the High Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal had held the disputed turnovers to be branch transfers and not liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The proposed tax revision proceedings were time-barred and the applications for condonation of delay had been dismissed, with the result that the Tribunal's decision had attained finality. In that situation, the authorities could not proceed on the basis that the Tribunal's order was still under consideration in revision.

Conclusion: The notices were unsustainable on the assumption that the Tribunal's order was pending in revision.

Issue (ii): whether revisional power could be exercised in respect of issues already decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: Section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act bars revisional power in respect of any issue or question that is the subject-matter of an appeal before, or has been decided on appeal by, the Appellate Tribunal under section 21. Since the disputed turnovers had already been decided by the Tribunal, the same matters could not be reopened in revision.

Conclusion: Revisional jurisdiction was barred against matters already decided by the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional notices could not be sustained, and the writ petitions succeeded with the notices set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an appellate tribunal's decision has attained finality, revisional power cannot be exercised to reopen the same subject-matter where the statute expressly bars revision on issues already decided on appeal.

---