Concurrent revisional jurisdiction upheld, but disputed purchase-source facts had to be re-examined on proper evidence.

Concurrent revisional powers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act allowed either the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner to act within limitation, so the Commissioner's exercise of section 22A revisional jurisdiction was valid. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed. On the purchase-tax question, the source of black pepper purchases was a disputed factual issue that required examination of accounts and documentary evidence; a revision order based mainly on a note sheet could not conclusively determine that issue on surmise. The factual finding was set aside and the matter remanded to the assessing officer for fresh determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could invoke revisional power under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, notwithstanding the parallel revisional power of the Joint Commissioner under section 21 of the Act; (ii) whether the finding regarding the source of purchase of black pepper required interference or fresh factual determination.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could invoke revisional power under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, notwithstanding the parallel revisional power of the Joint Commissioner under section 21 of the Act.

Analysis: The Act vested revisional jurisdiction in both the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner under different provisions. The existence of revisional power in one authority did not exclude the other, and the assessee did not dispute the validity of the Commissioner's power under section 22A. Since both provisions operated within the prescribed period of limitation, the Commissioner was competent to exercise revisional power directly.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Commissioner's jurisdiction failed and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding regarding the source of purchase of black pepper required interference or fresh factual determination.

Analysis: The revisional finding was founded mainly on the note sheet prepared by the assessing officer, while the actual question whether the purchases were from local unregistered dealers or from dealers outside Karnataka was one of fact requiring proper examination of accounts and documentary evidence. A revisional authority was not expected to substitute a factual conclusion on surmise, and the issue had not been properly determined at the assessment stage.

Conclusion: The factual finding on the source of purchase was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh determination by the assessing officer.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the remand on the purchase-tax issue, while the Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute confers concurrent revisional powers on two authorities under distinct provisions, either authority may validly exercise the power within limitation, but a disputed factual issue affecting tax liability must be determined on proper evidence and cannot be conclusively resolved on surmise in revision.

---