Court clarifies revisional authority's competence during appeal, distinguishes appeal from revision.

The court ruled against the assessee on the competency of the revisional authority during the pendency of an appeal, clarifying the distinction between an appeal against assessment and an application for revision. It held that revision by an officer of the same rank was impermissible, following a precedent and tribunal orders. Consequently, the issues regarding the levy of tax on consumable store and the retrospective effect of a specific section were left unaddressed. The legality of the ex parte decision by the Tribunal was not extensively discussed, as the judgment primarily focused on the revisional authority's competence and the validity of revisional orders by an officer of the same rank.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Competency of revisional authority during pendency of appeal
2. Validity of revisional order by an officer of the same rank
3. Levy of tax on consumable store and retrospective effect of section 15A
4. Legality of ex parte decision by the Tribunal

Analysis:

Competency of revisional authority during pendency of appeal:
The issue revolved around whether the revisional authority could make a decision while an appeal was pending before the Tribunal. The court clarified that the pending matter was an application for revision, not an appeal against assessment. The court distinguished the situation from the precedent cited and ruled against the assessee, stating that the judgment cited did not apply to the current case. The court highlighted the difference between an appeal against assessment and an application for revision, emphasizing that the assessment order could be examined on merits in an appeal, leading to a higher demand, which could not be done through a revision application. Therefore, the court answered this question against the assessee.

Validity of revisional order by an officer of the same rank:
The question raised the issue of whether an officer of the same rank could exercise revisional powers. The counsel for the assessee argued against this, citing a judgment and instructions issued by the State of Haryana. The court acknowledged the precedence cited and accepted that revision by an officer of the same rank was impermissible. By referring to specific tribunal orders, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that revision by an officer of the same rank was not allowed.

Levy of tax on consumable store and retrospective effect of section 15A:
Due to the decision on the second question, the court did not delve into the issues regarding the levy of tax on consumable store and the retrospective effect of section 15A. These questions were left unanswered as they were deemed irrelevant after the ruling on the validity of revisional orders by an officer of the same rank.

Legality of ex parte decision by the Tribunal:
The issue of the legality of the ex parte decision by the Tribunal was not directly addressed in detail, as the focus of the judgment primarily centered around the competency of the revisional authority and the validity of revisional orders by an officer of the same rank. The court disposed of the reference accordingly, leaving the questions related to the ex parte decision unanswered due to the resolution of the preceding issues.

---