THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR T.R.E.V.C.No. 15 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J). This revision under Section 22(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 is directed against the order dt. 10.12.2009 of the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in Appeal No. 1039 of 2005 whereby the appeal directed against the revisional order of the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) dt. 22.2.2005 pertaining, to the assessment year 1997-98 was rejected. The singular ground urged to impeach the order of the STAT is that it failed to notice that the exercise of revisional power by the Additional Commissioner culminating in the order dt. 22.2.2005 is patently without jurisdiction inasmuch as earlier the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Panjagutta Division had initiated revisional proceedings in respect of the same assessment year by issuing a show notice dt. 31.3.2002 and by the order dt. 28.7.2003 discharged the show cause notice on the ground that exercise of revisional power was unavailable to the Deputy Commissioner, since the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner relied on a Judgement of the Supreme Court dt. 17.12.2002 in OCL India Limited in Civil Appeal No. 8534 of 2000 purportedly to the effect that once revisional power is exhausted, no further revision could be initiated in the absence of any statutory provision enabling exercise of revisional power, again. The principle is axiomatic that once quasi judicial power is exercised to its culmination, it is not liable to be exercised again; and in case where such revisional power conferred on plurality of authorities and an authority lower in the hierarchy exercises such revisional power to its culmination, it is not available to be exercised again by an authority superior in rank having the same jurisdiction, of revision. In the facts of this case, however, the Deputy Commissioner did not exercise the revisional power. He merely initiated revisional proceedings and issued a show cause notice. The proceedings were however discharged on the ground that he was not competent to exercise revisional power as an appeal against the same assessment order to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was dismissed during the pendency of the revision. The order of the Deputy Commissioner 28.7.2003 cannot be construed as an exercise of the revisional power to its culmination. It was merely an initiation the process of revision; which was however aborted/eschewed on account of absence of competence and jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the exercise of revisional power by the Additional Commissioner who is admittedly competent to exercise revisional power is not barred on any principle of law. This is what the Tribunal concluded; and correctly. On the aforesaid premise, there are no merits in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RGHURAM, J _________________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 17.08.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR T.R.E.V.C.No. 15 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J). 17.08.2011.