Revisional bar under sales tax law applies only to the same pending issue; factual disputes and alternate appeal defeat writ relief.

Section 20(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 bars revision only when the very same issue or question is already pending before the Tribunal. The phrase is wide, but the restraint depends on whether the matter is factual or a pure question of law; a fact-specific controversy for a particular assessment year does not necessarily attract the bar. On the stated facts, freight, purchase price and delivery terms were treated as factual issues, so the revisional authority was not without jurisdiction. The writ petition also failed because an effective statutory appeal under section 21 was available and no exception to writ jurisdiction was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was barred from proceeding under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, because the same subject matter was pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The statutory bar under section 20(2A) operates where the issue or question pending before the Tribunal is the same issue or question that is sought to be revised, and the scope of the bar has to be determined by the nature of the issue. The controlling authority held that the phrase "issue or question" is wide, but the revisional restraint applies differently depending on whether the matter is one of fact or of law. A factual controversy tied to the particular assessment year and dependent on the evidence in that case does not necessarily attract the prohibition in the same manner as a pure question of law. On the facts before the authority, the questions regarding freight, purchase price, and delivery terms were treated as factual issues for that assessment year, and that conclusion was not shown to be perverse. Since the bar was held inapplicable, the revisional power was not without jurisdiction. The petitioner also had an efficacious statutory appeal under section 21, and none of the recognised exceptions warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction was made out.

Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were not barred by section 20(2A), and the writ petition was not maintainable in the face of the alternative appellate remedy; the challenge failed.

---