TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could validly exercise jurisdiction under section 22 after the assessment order had merged with the earlier revisional order under section 21(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. (ii) Whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the orders and making only a restricted remand while deciding certain issues finally.
Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could validly exercise jurisdiction under section 22 after the assessment order had merged with the earlier revisional order under section 21(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Analysis: The assessment order had earlier been subjected to revision proceedings and the earlier revisional order became the operative order by merger. The subsequent proceedings under section 22 were directed against that revisional order and not against the original assessment order. Since the power to revise the order passed in revision was available under the Act, the challenge based on want of jurisdiction could not succeed.
Conclusion: The revision under section 22 was maintainable and the jurisdictional objection was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the orders and making only a restricted remand while deciding certain issues finally.
Analysis: The revisional authority had power to interfere with the assessment, to direct reassessment, and also to finally decide issues where the record was sufficient. Where further enquiry was necessary, it could remand only those matters. The restricted remand was therefore within jurisdiction and did not suffer from legal infirmity.
Conclusion: The restricted remand and partial final determination were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional order failed, and no ground was made out for interference with the impugned decision.
Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority may validly exercise statutory revision over an earlier revisional order, and it may finally decide issues supported by the record while remanding only those matters requiring further enquiry.
TaxTMI 
