Suo motu revisional power under entry tax law can survive an available appeal and support further inquiry on tax liability.

The text explains that the appellate remedy under section 14 of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act does not limit the Commissioner's independent suo motu revisional power under section 15 to correct orders prejudicial to the Revenue. It also states that, in revision, further inquiry may be made and municipal records may be relied on to determine whether the factory was outside the municipal limits, affecting entry tax liability. The revisional order is described as confined to the goods covered by the notice, and the absence of a request for supply or rebuttal of the material was treated as significant. The assessment as restored in revision remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority had jurisdiction under section 15 of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979 to revise the appellate order notwithstanding the availability of an appeal under section 14 of that Act. (ii) Whether the assessee was liable to entry tax on goods purchased from a factory found to be outside the municipal limits of Mysore Corporation, and whether the revisional order could be sustained on the basis of further inquiry and the material collected.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority had jurisdiction under section 15 of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979 to revise the appellate order notwithstanding the availability of an appeal under section 14 of that Act.

Analysis: The appellate remedy under section 14 did not curtail the independent suo motu revisional power under section 15. That provision empowered the Commissioner or Joint Commissioner to examine an order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue and to pass suitable orders after hearing the assessee and making such inquiry as necessary. The higher hierarchy of the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner also placed that authority above the Deputy Commissioner whose order was revised.

Conclusion: The revisional authority had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was liable to entry tax on goods purchased from a factory found to be outside the municipal limits of Mysore Corporation, and whether the revisional order could be sustained on the basis of further inquiry and the material collected.

Analysis: The appellate authority had proceeded on an incomplete basis and had not specifically found that the factory fell within the municipal limits. The revisional authority was competent under section 15 to make further inquiry, and the inquiry from the municipal corporation showed that the factory site was outside the municipal tax area and not paying municipal taxes. The complaint that this material was not supplied was rejected because no request for a copy or for rebuttal had been made at the relevant stage. The revisional order was also read as confined to the goods covered by the notice and not beyond it.

Conclusion: The assessee was liable to entry tax on the disputed goods, and the revisional order restoring the assessment was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both jurisdiction and merits, and the assessment as restored in revision remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate remedy does not limit an independent suo motu revisional power expressly conferred to correct orders prejudicial to Revenue, and the revisional authority may make further inquiry and sustain its order on material properly considered within the scope of the notice.

---