Revisional Power and Functus Officio: repeat revision of a completed assessment was barred, but pre-adjudication notice remained valid.

Section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was upheld as a valid supervisory revisional power, because it operated within an intelligible administrative framework and included procedural safeguards such as notice and hearing. The challenge under article 14 failed, and the Deputy Commissioner's internal designation did not affect statutory competence. However, once a revisional order had already been passed for a completed assessment year, the authority became functus officio and could not issue a fresh notice on the same matter. A further notice for another assessment year was sustained where no final revisional order had yet been made and the notice merely supplied additional grounds before adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was unconstitutional as violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether the Deputy Commissioner in his administrative designation lacked revisional competence; (ii) whether a second show cause notice for the 1979-80 assessment period, after an earlier revisional order had already been made, was without jurisdiction, and whether a further notice for the 1980-81 assessment period could be issued before any final order on the first notice.

Issue (i): Whether section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was unconstitutional as violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether the Deputy Commissioner in his administrative designation lacked revisional competence.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 21(2) was held to be a controlled supervisory power meant to be exercised by superior officers over subordinate assessing authorities within their territorial jurisdiction. The existence of different internal designations such as Deputy Commissioner (Administration) and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) did not affect the statutory competence of the office of Deputy Commissioner. The provision was also upheld against the article 14 challenge because the revisional scheme served the protection of public revenue, applied within an intelligible administrative framework, and was supported by procedural safeguards including notice, hearing, appeal, and further revision.

Conclusion: Section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was upheld and the challenge based on article 14 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a second show cause notice for the 1979-80 assessment period, after an earlier revisional order had already been made, was without jurisdiction, and whether a further notice for the 1980-81 assessment period could be issued before any final order on the first notice.

Analysis: Once the Deputy Commissioner had made a revisional order for the 1979-80 assessment period, the power of revision in respect of that assessment was exhausted and he became functus officio. A second notice seeking to revise the same completed order was therefore impermissible and exposed the assessee to repeated revisional harassment. For the 1980-81 assessment period, however, no final order had been made on the first notice, and the second notice was treated as a further notice issued to supply more specific grounds before adjudication. In that situation the revisional power had not been exhausted.

Conclusion: The second notice for 1979-80 was quashed, while the further notice for 1980-81 was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revisional scheme under the Act was upheld, but repetitive revision of the same completed assessment was barred, resulting in only one impugned notice being struck down while the remaining writ petitions failed or were left to proceed before the Deputy Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory revisional authority cannot invoke suo motu revision repeatedly in respect of the same completed assessment after it has already passed a revisional order, but a further notice may be issued before final adjudication if no order has yet been made.

---