Suo motu revisional jurisdiction upheld where the issue was not earlier decided and proceedings were initiated within the statutory period.

Suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was upheld where the point sought to be revised had not been raised or decided in the earlier appeal or revision, and the proceedings were started within four years of the first appellate order. The Karnataka HC held that the statutory precondition for revision was satisfied because the record showed initiation on 6 July 1996 within the prescribed period. No jurisdictional defect was found, and the challenge to the revisional orders failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional Commissioner could validly exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 when the point revised had not been raised and decided in the earlier appeal or revision and the proceedings were initiated within four years.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 22A is available where the order sought to be revised was not already the subject-matter of appeal or revision on the point in question and the proceedings are commenced within the statutory period of four years from the date of the first appellate order. The record showed that the revision was initiated on 6 July 1996, well within four years from the relevant appellate orders. The Court therefore found no jurisdictional defect in the exercise of revisional power.

Conclusion: The suo motu revisional orders were valid and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.

---