Revisional jurisdiction confined to specified statutory orders; challenge to inherent lack of jurisdiction was not barred in appeal.

Revisional power under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be exercised only in relation to orders or proceedings passed under sections 20 or 21. Because the assessment was made under section 5-B and the refund approval was granted by the Joint Commissioner, neither order fell within that revisional ambit; the Additional Commissioner therefore acted without inherent jurisdiction, and the revisional order was void ab initio and quashed. Section 24-A, which bars belated objections only as to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, did not prevent the assessee from challenging a fundamental lack of jurisdiction for the first time in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional Commissioner could invoke revisional power under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to set aside an assessment made under section 5-B and the connected refund approval, and whether section 24-A barred the assessee from challenging jurisdiction for the first time in appeal.

Analysis: Section 22-A authorises the Additional Commissioner to revise only orders or proceedings passed or recorded under section 20 or section 21. The assessment in question was made under section 5-B, and the refund approval was granted by the Joint Commissioner; neither order fell within section 20 or section 21. The revisional proceedings were therefore initiated without authority and the resulting order was without inherent jurisdiction and void ab initio. Section 24-A applies only to objections as to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of an assessing authority and does not cover a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Such a defect cannot be cured by consent, waiver, or failure to object at the earliest opportunity.

Conclusion: The revisional order under section 22-A was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained, and section 24-A did not bar the challenge.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded, and the impugned revisional order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power confined to specified statutory orders cannot be extended by implication, and a challenge to inherent lack of jurisdiction is not barred by a provision dealing only with territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction.

---