Revisional jurisdiction requires a real legal error and revenue prejudice; a different estimate alone cannot justify interference.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be invoked only if the order revised was both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. A permissible appellate estimate of suppressed turnover, adopted on the facts and limited to the period up to inspection, was not a legal error merely because another method might have yielded a higher demand. The Commissioner's reversal on jaggery, based on suspicion despite the appellate finding that the Nond book record showed no suppression, was likewise an invalid basis for revision. The penalty, resting entirely on that unsustainable revisional interference, could not survive and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in exercising suo motu revisional power under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, to revise the appellate authority's estimate of suppressed turnover relating to dhania and jaggery; and whether the consequential penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: Revisional power under section 22A is available only when the order revised is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. A mere possibility that another method of estimation could yield a larger tax demand does not by itself make the appellate order erroneous. The appellate authority had adopted a permissible method on the facts for restricting disallowance to the period up to inspection, and that could not be characterised as a legal error, misapplication of law, or arbitrary approach. In relation to jaggery, the Commissioner reversed the appellate finding on the basis of suspicion and conjecture, although the appellate authority had accepted the record in the Nond book and found no suppression. Such a reversal was not a valid basis for invoking revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revision under section 22A was not justified either on the turnover issue or on the jaggery issue, and the appellate authority's order was restored.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed by the Commissioner could stand after the revisional order was set aside.

Analysis: The penalty was founded on the revisional interference on the merits of the jaggery transaction. Once that interference failed, the foundation for the penalty disappeared. The penalty could not survive independently when the underlying revisional determination itself was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the revisional interference was annulled, the appellate authority's relief was restored, and the penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only for a real legal error that makes the order prejudicial to revenue administration, and not merely because a different estimate or view could have produced a higher tax demand.

---