1. This revision has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13th January, 1976, for the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee was assessed to tax on a turnover of Rs. 37,05,572.97 on 26th June, 1971. The assessee appealed against this assessment relating to certain sales of what are called workmen stores, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter to the Tribunal. It appears that the assessing authority had left out a sum of Rs. 2,50,019.21 representing the sale value of gunnies, discarded machinery and empty drums, proceeding on the view that such sales were not taxable. At the relevant time, there was a decision of this Court in the case of Thirumagal Mills  20 STC 287 which was to the effect that such items could not be taxed. This view of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in Burmah Shell's case : 2SCR636 . The Deputy Commissioner sought to revise the order of the assessing authority under section 32 of the Act in order to bring the said turnover of Rs. 2,50,019.21 to tax. The assessee replied to the show cause notice stating that there was no finding that the sales were incidental or ancillary to the assessee's business. It was also stated that the sales were not effected in the course of business. The Deputy Commissioner did not accept these submissions and he, therefore, included the sum of Rs. 2,50,019.21 and brought it to tax at 3 per cent. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal. One of the contentions taken before the Tribunal was that the assessment order was the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that it could not be the subject of revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner in view of section 32(2)(b). The Tribunal held that section 32(2)(b) clearly debarred the Deputy Commissioner from exercising his jurisdiction. It is this order of the Tribunal that is challenged in the present revision.
2. In Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Gnanapatham 42STC262, a Bench of this Court held that if an order of the assessing authority was the subject of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner had no right to interfere with the order in suo motu revision. In Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 42 STC263 the same Bench reiterated the position after examining the matter a little more in detail. The later decision in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu  42 STC263 has been found to be good law in a judgment of the Full Bench in Tax Case No. 342 of 1975 [Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, Madras 47STC155(FB). In view of this well-established position, the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner was not exercisable in the present case, and the Tribunal was right in its conclusion regarding the legality of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed. This will be no order as to costs.
3. Petition dismissed.