Composition tax requires positive permission; revision cannot convert a lawful regular assessment into composition liability.

Composition of tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act takes effect only when the assessing authority grants permission by a positive order; a pending application alone does not bind the dealer to composition. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to replace a regular assessment with composition-based liability unless the assessment order is itself illegal, improper, or irregular and prejudicial to the Revenue. Where the assessment was made on a lawful regular basis and the only lapse was non-disposal of the composition application, revision was not an available substitute. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable and was quashed, with refund directed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for composition of tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act became operative without a positive order granting permission, and whether the assessee could be treated as bound by composition merely because the application was pending; (ii) Whether the revisional authority could invoke revisional jurisdiction to substitute a regular assessment with a composition-based liability when the assessment order itself was not illegal or irregular.

Issue (i): Whether an application for composition of tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act became operative without a positive order granting permission, and whether the assessee could be treated as bound by composition merely because the application was pending.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required permission for composition to be granted by the assessing authority within the prescribed time and such permission had to be evidenced by a positive order. Mere filing of an application did not by itself bring composition into force. In the absence of an order accepting the application, composition could not be foisted on the dealer merely because a later regular assessment appeared less advantageous to the Revenue.

Conclusion: The absence of a positive order meant that composition had not come into operation, and the assessee could not be treated as having been bound by composition on the basis of the pending application alone.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority could invoke revisional jurisdiction to substitute a regular assessment with a composition-based liability when the assessment order itself was not illegal or irregular.

Analysis: Revisional power under the Act was available against an order that was illegal, improper, or irregular and had caused prejudice to the Revenue. Here, the assessment order itself was made on a regular basis and did not suffer from illegality or irregularity. At most, any lapse lay in the assessing authority's inaction in not passing an order on the composition application, and that omission could not be corrected by revising a legally valid assessment order.

Conclusion: The revisional authority lacked a proper jurisdictional basis to revise the assessment on the ground adopted by it, and the revisional order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the revisional order was quashed, and any tax paid pursuant to that order was directed to be refunded in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Composition under the Act becomes operative only upon a positive grant of permission, and revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to replace a lawful assessment merely because the Revenue considers another assessment method more advantageous.

---