Revisional power under sales tax law may rely on material beyond the assessment record when Revenue prejudice is prima facie shown.

The revisional authority under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could act on a prima facie showing that the assessment was prejudicial to Revenue, and it was not confined to patent errors on the assessment record; material collected after assessment could be considered to assess whether the original order was erroneous. On that basis, the revisional notice was upheld. The notice proposing consequential exclusion of the same turnover from the Central sales tax assessment was also sustained because it was dependent on the proposed State revision and did not call for separate interference at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act on the basis of material collected after assessment and outside the assessment record; (ii) whether the notice proposing consequential exclusion of the same turnover from the Central sales tax assessment was invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act on the basis of material collected after assessment and outside the assessment record.

Analysis: Section 22A empowers revision where the assessment is considered prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The disputed turnover had already formed part of the gross turnover and had been assessed; the controversy was whether it had been wrongly treated as inter-State sales. The revisional power was not confined to patent errors on the face of the record, and the authority could look into additional material for deciding whether the original assessment was erroneous. At the writ stage, the Court only examined whether there was a prima facie basis for the revisional action, and held that the material relied on by the Commissioner furnished such a basis.

Conclusion: The revisional notice under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was valid and was upheld, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice proposing consequential exclusion of the same turnover from the Central sales tax assessment was invalid.

Analysis: The proposed deletion from the Central sales tax assessment was only consequential to the contemplated revision under the State Act. If the turnover was ultimately treated as local sales under the State law, it could not continue to be assessed under the Central sales tax law in the same manner. The consequential nature of the notice meant that no separate interference was warranted at that stage.

Conclusion: The consequential notice relating to the Central sales tax assessment was not quashed, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the Commissioner had a sufficient prima facie basis to commence revision and the consequential adjustment under the Central sales tax assessment was not independently vulnerable.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority may invoke revision on a prima facie showing that an assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue, and may consider material beyond the assessment record where necessary; a consequential notice following the proposed revision need not be quashed at the threshold.

---