Revisional jurisdiction under VAT law and input tax credit verification require statutory authority and proper reconsideration of records.

Statutory revisional power under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was treated as arising from the Act itself, so a separate direction under section 61(1) was not necessary to sustain jurisdiction. On input tax credit, the text notes that where verification of supporting documents is inadequate and genuineness or tax payment is doubtful, revisional interference is justified; however, the proper course is reconsideration on the existing record rather than a final disallowance without adequate verification. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication on the available material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction for want of a direction under section 61(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. (ii) Whether the revisional order disallowing input tax credit and restoring the assessment could be sustained, or whether the matter required reconsideration by the assessing authority.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction for want of a direction under section 61(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: Revisional power is conferred by statute on the Additional Commissioner and Commissioner under section 64. The court noted the Government order redesignating authorities and redefining jurisdiction, and held that the absence of a separate direction did not, by itself, defeat the statutory revisional competence.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction was rejected and the revisional authority was held to have acted within jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order disallowing input tax credit and restoring the assessment could be sustained, or whether the matter required reconsideration by the assessing authority.

Analysis: The revisional authority found that the allowance of input tax credit had not been properly verified and that the supporting documents raised doubts as to genuineness and tax payment. While the court accepted that these circumstances justified interference with the assessment order, it held that the revisional authority ought to have directed reconsideration of the material already on record rather than sustaining the disallowance outright in the manner done.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable to the limited extent that it finally concluded the input tax credit issue without proper reconsideration on the existing record.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were partly allowed, with the jurisdictional challenge rejected and the issue of input tax credit remitted for fresh adjudication on the available material.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory revisional power does not depend on a separate notification where jurisdiction is conferred by the Act, and where the allowance of input tax credit is found inadequately examined, the proper course is reconsideration on the existing record rather than a final disposal unsupported by due verification.

---