Revision jurisdiction depends on statutory subordination in force at the relevant time; later rule changes cannot validate an unauthorized revision.

Under the unamended rule 44-A then in force, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was not subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for revision under section 20, but only to the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Legal. The Commissioner therefore lacked jurisdiction to revise the appellate order, and a later amendment could not cure that absence of authority at the relevant time. The contrary finding that the assessee had not produced the relevant contracts before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was also inconsistent with the record, which showed that copies of the agreement had been produced by the authorised representative. The revisional order was quashed and the assessee's appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with rule 44-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, to revise the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner during the relevant period; (ii) Whether the Commissioner's finding that the appellant had not produced the relevant contracts before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with rule 44-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, to revise the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner during the relevant period.

Analysis: Under the unamended rule 44-A then in force, orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioners were deemed to be subordinate only to the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Legal, for the purpose of revision under section 20. The Commissioner was not shown to have passed the impugned order in exercise of the powers of the Joint Commissioner, Legal. The later amendment of the rule confirmed that the earlier position was different and did not cure the lack of authority at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order, and the impugned revisional order was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's finding that the appellant had not produced the relevant contracts before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was sustainable.

Analysis: The Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order recorded that copies of the agreement were produced by the appellant's authorised representative. The Commissioner's contrary finding was inconsistent with the record and could not stand.

Conclusion: The contrary finding was unsustainable and had to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside and the assessee's appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority can exercise power only over an authority made subordinate to it by the governing statute and rules in force at the relevant time; a later amendment cannot validate an earlier revision made without jurisdiction.

---