Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to decide collateral disputes when statutory forms must be considered on assessment merits.

An appeal did not lie against a revisional order under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 because the proviso to section 43(1) expressly barred appeals from orders passed under section 47, and the statutory right of appeal could not be implied. The revisional order was also unsustainable because the authority failed to examine the effect of the statutory forms on turnover and tax liability and instead investigated collateral allegations about the raid and recovery of forms, which lay beyond revisional jurisdiction. The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the revisional order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on the assessment merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lay against the revisional order passed under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. (ii) Whether the revisional order could be sustained when the authority ignored the statutory forms and entered into an inquiry into the alleged raid and recovery of forms instead of examining the assessment on merits.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay against the revisional order passed under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975.

Analysis: The proviso to section 43(1) barred an appeal against orders passed under section 47. The right of appeal being purely statutory, it could not be assumed where the Act expressly excluded it.

Conclusion: The appeal against the revisional order was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order could be sustained when the authority ignored the statutory forms and entered into an inquiry into the alleged raid and recovery of forms instead of examining the assessment on merits.

Analysis: The revisional authority was required to examine the effect of the ST-1, ST-35, C and F forms on turnover and tax liability. Instead, it went into the question whether the forms were truly recovered from the assessing officer or had been planted, a matter beyond its jurisdiction in revision. The order reflected misdirection in jurisdiction and failure to act fairly on the material relevant to assessment.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the revisional order was quashed and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision on the assessment merits after considering the statutory forms.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority must confine itself to the assessment issues properly before it and cannot decide collateral questions beyond its jurisdiction; where relevant statutory material is ignored, the order is vitiated and may be set aside under writ jurisdiction.

---