Revisional power over a jurisdictionally defective assessment was upheld where the assessing officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.

Revisional power under section 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is attracted when an assessment is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. An assessment made by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under the jurisdictional allocation in section 3-B is without jurisdiction, and that defect goes to the root of the assessment. Such an order is liable to correction in revision, and the possibility that the assessee may later challenge the assessment or seek refund is sufficient prejudice to sustain revisional action. The revisional order setting aside the defective assessment and remitting the matter for fresh assessment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Joint Commissioner was justified in exercising revisional powers under section 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to set aside an assessment made by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction and to remit the matter for de novo assessment.

Analysis: Revisional power under section 22-A is attracted only where the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An assessment made by an officer who is not the competent assessing authority under the allocation of jurisdiction made under section 3-B is an order made without jurisdiction. Such want of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and renders the assessment liable to be corrected in revision. The possibility that the assessee may later challenge the assessment or seek refund on the ground of illegality or want of jurisdiction is sufficient prejudice to the Revenue for invoking revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revisional order was valid and the assessment was rightly set aside and remanded for fresh assessment.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the revenue authorities' action in annulling the jurisdictionally defective assessment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment made by an officer lacking jurisdiction is an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the prospect of a future challenge to such assessment is enough to sustain revision under the Act.

---