Restoration of revision dismissed for default falls within revisional jurisdiction, and the competent authority must decide it on merits.

An application to restore a revision petition dismissed for default is not a review of the earlier order; it is part of the revisional jurisdiction relating to the revision itself. Where the Board of Revenue had ceased to function and pending revisional matters were transferred under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the Commissioner appointed under section 40(2) was the competent authority to entertain and decide the restoration request. The Commissioner erred in declining to examine the application on merits on the mistaken belief that no power existed merely because the revision had earlier been dismissed for default.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application for restoration of a revision petition dismissed for default by the abolished Board of Revenue, and whether his refusal to decide it on merits was sustainable.

Analysis: An application for restoration of a revision petition dismissed for default is not a review of the earlier order within the meaning of the Board's review power. The power to deal with such an application is not an independent jurisdiction outside the revisional sphere, but forms part of the revisional jurisdiction exercised under the Mysore Board of Revenue Act in relation to revision petitions under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. Once the Board of Revenue had ceased to function and pending revisional matters stood to be dealt with under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the Commissioner appointed under section 40(2) was the competent authority to exercise that jurisdiction. However, the Commissioner wrongly declined to consider the restoration application on merits by assuming that he had no power merely because the Board had dismissed the revision petition for default.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had competence to hear the restoration application, but his order refusing to exercise that jurisdiction on a mistaken view of power was unsustainable.

---