Revisional jurisdiction is limited by statute, and a remand for natural justice breach is not prejudicial to Revenue.

The revisional power under the Karnataka Entry Tax Act is confined to the statutory order under revision and cannot be used to nullify a later assessment order passed by the assessing authority. A revisional authority may correct the order before it, but it cannot travel beyond that jurisdictional limit. An appellate remand made only because the assessee was denied an opportunity to produce books of account, and therefore to cure a breach of natural justice, is not an order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revision was therefore unsustainable, while liberty remained to pursue any other remedy available in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority, while exercising power under section 15 of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979, could set aside the subsequent assessment order passed by the assessing authority. (ii) Whether an appellate order remanding the matter for fresh disposal on the ground of violation of natural justice could be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to attract revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority, while exercising power under section 15 of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979, could set aside the subsequent assessment order passed by the assessing authority.

Analysis: Section 15 defines the hierarchy and limits of revisional power among the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The revisional authority was competent to revise the order of the Joint Commissioner, but it could not travel beyond that order and nullify a later assessment order passed by the assessing authority, since such a course was outside the jurisdiction conferred by the statute.

Conclusion: The revisional authority had no power under section 15 to set aside the subsequent assessment order.

Issue (ii): Whether an appellate order remanding the matter for fresh disposal on the ground of violation of natural justice could be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to attract revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Joint Commissioner had set aside the ex parte assessment only because the assessee was denied an opportunity to produce books of account, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Such an order did not decide the merits and was made solely to cure a breach of natural justice. An order passed for that limited reason cannot be regarded as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the purpose of revision.

Conclusion: The remand order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision was unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded on the core jurisdictional and prejudiciality questions, with liberty reserved to the respondent to pursue any other remedy available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority cannot exceed the statutory limits of its jurisdiction, and an order setting aside an assessment solely for breach of natural justice is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for revision.

---