Revisional jurisdiction and res judicata: an erroneous earlier direction cannot cure a jurisdictional defect in revision proceedings.

The amended section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 allowed revisional action only where the subordinate order was prejudicial to revenue, and the Supreme Court's declaration of law under Article 141 was binding. On that basis, an assessee had no vested right to demand revision in its favour, and a Commissioner's order passed at the assessee's request was without jurisdiction. An earlier direction to entertain the revision petition did not create jurisdiction by res judicata, because a pure jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by an erroneous prior decision. The challenged order was treated as a nullity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could invoke the Commissioner's revisional power under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and whether the earlier direction to entertain the revision petition barred the jurisdictional objection by res judicata.

Analysis: The amended section 20 permitted revision only where the subordinate order or proceeding was prejudicial to the interests of revenue, and the Supreme Court's declaration of law under article 141 bound the Court. On that basis, the assessee had no vested right to demand revision in its favour, and the Commissioner's order passed on the assessee's request was without jurisdiction. The earlier order directing entertainment of the revision petition could not confer jurisdiction by res judicata, because a pure question of jurisdiction cannot be conclusively validated by an erroneous earlier decision. The challenged order was therefore treated as lacking inherent authority and as a nullity.

Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed, and the Commissioner's order was held to be without jurisdiction and non est.

---