Revisional jurisdiction under sales tax law could not extend to an order of an authority not yet made subordinate.

Section 20(1) revisional power was confined to orders of authorities subordinate to the Commissioner. Because the Additional Commissioner's order was passed before rule 44-A was amended to place that office within the subordination scheme, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise it. The later retrospective insertion of the definition of Additional Commissioner did not retrospectively create subordination for revision purposes. The revision was therefore without jurisdiction and illegal, and the assessee obtained relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to revise, under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, an order passed by the Additional Commissioner when the latter had not yet been made subordinate to the Commissioner under rule 44-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 20(1) extends only to orders passed by an authority subordinate to the Commissioner. Although the Act and the Rules were later amended to recognise the post of Additional Commissioner and to bring that authority within the subordination scheme, the relevant order of the Additional Commissioner had been passed on 21 April 1993, before rule 44-A was amended so as to make the Additional Commissioner subordinate to the Commissioner. The retrospective insertion of the definition of Additional Commissioner did not retrospectively create subordination for the purpose of the Commissioner's revisional power. The Commissioner therefore could not treat the Additional Commissioner's order as revisable under section 20(1).

Conclusion: The Commissioner's revision was without jurisdiction and illegal. The challenge succeeded and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---