Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to upset an appellate order supported by the record and a properly explained revised return.

The Karnataka High Court considered whether suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be used to restore an assessment after the appellate authority accepted a revised return and set aside a best judgment assessment. It held that the discrepancies noticed by the assessing authority had been satisfactorily explained in the revised return and the reply to the revisional notice, and that the questioned turnover items were already accounted for on the record. As the appellate order disclosed no unsustainable or jurisdictional error, the Commissioner had no basis to interfere, and the order restoring the assessment could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, to restore the assessment after the appellate authority had accepted the revised return and set aside the best judgment assessment.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the omissions and discrepancies noticed by the assessing authority had been explained in the revised return and in the reply to the revisional notice. The turnover items questioned by the Commissioner had already been accounted for by the assessing authority under the head of omissions, and the explanation regarding the cancelled registration certificate and the alleged misclassification of purchases was found to be supported by the record. In these circumstances, the appellate authority was justified in accepting the revised return. Since there was no unsustainable or jurisdictional error in the appellate order, the Commissioner had no basis to exercise revisional power.

Conclusion: The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to interfere under section 22-A, and the order restoring the assessment could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was restored, and the assessee succeeded with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power cannot be exercised where the appellate order is supported by the record and the alleged discrepancies have been satisfactorily explained in the revised return.

---