Revisional power barred during pending second appeal where tribunal can still enhance assessment to protect revenue.

A subordinate revisional authority cannot revise an appellate order that is already before a superior tribunal in second appeal, because the appellate hierarchy and the statute's scheme place the tribunal above the revisional authority in relation to that order. The revisional power therefore yields to the pending appellate jurisdiction. At the same time, the tribunal in second appeal has co-extensive power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, so the Revenue's interests can be protected within the appeal itself. The result is that revisional proceedings cannot stand while the second appeal is pending, and assessment enhancement remains available to the tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could exercise revisional power under Section 57(1)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 against an appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner when a second appeal against that order was pending before the Tribunal; and (ii) whether, in such a second appeal, the Tribunal had power to enhance the assessment so that the Revenue's interests remained protected.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could exercise revisional power under Section 57(1)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 against an appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner when a second appeal against that order was pending before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed the Tribunal above the Commissioner in the appellate and revisional hierarchy. Once the Tribunal had assumed appellate jurisdiction over the order, a subordinate authority could not revise the very same order unless the statute plainly so provided. The Court held that the Commissioner's revisional power could not be invoked over an order already seized by the Tribunal in appeal, and that the absence of an express prohibition did not alter the necessary intendment of the statute.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the appellate order while the second appeal was pending before the Tribunal, and this was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, in such a second appeal, the Tribunal had power to enhance the assessment so that the Revenue's interests remained protected.

Analysis: Under Section 55(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, an appellate authority in both first and second appeal could confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment. The power to enhance therefore existed in second appeal as well, and the Tribunal could grant adequate relief to the Revenue within the appeal itself. The comparable provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961 supported this construction, though the appellate scheme under the Bombay Act was distinct.

Conclusion: The Tribunal possessed the power to enhance the assessment in second appeal, and this was in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revisional proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner could not stand, because the Tribunal alone could deal with the assessment order in the pending second appeal, including by enhancing the assessment if warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate revisional authority cannot revise an order that is already the subject of appellate jurisdiction before a superior tribunal, where the statute vests that tribunal with co-extensive appellate powers including enhancement of assessment.

---