Revisional jurisdiction requires both error and revenue prejudice; absent either finding, the revision cannot stand.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be exercised only if the order under revision is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The revisional authority must record findings on both jurisdictional conditions before interfering with an appellate order. Because the impugned revision did not establish either requirement, the interference was unsustainable and the revisional order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority could invoke revision under Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in the absence of a finding that the appellate order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Analysis: The statutory power of revision under Section 64(1) is conditioned on the simultaneous existence of two requirements, namely, that the order sought to be revised is erroneous and that it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The impugned revisional order did not record the requisite finding on either limb. Instead, it proceeded to interfere with the appellate order without satisfying the jurisdictional threshold mandated by the provision. In the absence of the condition precedent for exercise of revisional power, the interference was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The revisional authority was not justified in setting aside the appellate order, and the action under Section 64(1) failed for want of jurisdictional compliance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the revisional order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be exercised only when the impugned order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and the absence of either condition vitiates the revision.

---