Revisional power cannot unsettle final appellate determinations through consequential orders; writ challenge was maintainable for lack of jurisdiction.

The Kerala HC held that suo motu revisional power under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act could be used only in relation to the original assessment, and under sub-section (2A) only for points not decided in appeal or revision. It could not be exercised to disturb consequential assessment orders passed to implement an appellate order that had merged with the original assessment and had attained finality. Allowing such revision would amount to an indirect challenge to the final appellate order, which was impermissible. The existence of an alternate statutory remedy did not bar the writ petition because the authority acted in excess of jurisdiction. The impugned orders and notice were therefore liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could invoke suo motu revisional power under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act to disturb consequential assessment orders passed pursuant to an appellate order that had attained finality, and whether the writ petition was barred by the existence of an alternate statutory remedy.

Analysis: Section 35 empowered the Deputy Commissioner to revise the original assessment order and, under sub-section (2A), to deal with points not decided in appeal or revision. That power did not extend to modifying consequential orders passed by the Assessing Authority in implementation of an appellate order, once the appellate order itself had merged with and replaced the original assessment and had not been challenged further. Permitting revision of the consequential orders would amount to indirectly unsettling an appellate order that had already attained finality. The plea of alternate remedy did not prevent interference where the authority acted in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to the statute.

Conclusion: The revisional action was without jurisdiction, and the challenge to the orders and notice was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The assessment revisions could not be reopened through Section 35 against consequential orders passed after a final appellate determination, so the impugned orders and notice were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power cannot be used to alter consequential orders made in implementation of an unchallenged and final appellate order, because the proper subject of revision remains the original assessment and not the appellate order by indirect attack.

---