ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 13 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, arising out of the assessment of the opponent to sales-tax for the year 1952-53. 2. The opponent was assessed to tax for the material period by the Sales-Tax Officer, Dhar, on the footing that the principal place of assessee's business was at Rajgarh in the Sales-tax Circle, Dhar, and that the assessee firm had a branch in Indore. The opponent then preferred an appeal before the Judge, Sales Tax Appeals, contending that the Sales-Tax Officer, Dhar had no jurisdiction to assess him as his principal place of business was located at Indore with a branch at Rajgarh. This contention found favour with the Appeal Judge who set aside the assessment order made by the Sales-Tax Officer, Dhar. Thereupon, the Sales-Tax Officer, Dhar, moved the Commissioner of Sales-Tax under Section 12 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales-Tax Act, 1950. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the finding of the Appeal Judge that the head-office of the assessee was at Indore was not based on any evidence and his order, therefore, quashing the order of assessment made by the Sales-Tax Officer, Dhar, was illegal and improper. He accordingly in the exercise of his revisional powers under Section 12 (1) set aside the order of the Appeal Judge and remanded the case to the appellate authority for disposal on merits of the appeal preferred by the assessee. Subsequently the opponent moved the Commissioner under Section 13 (1) of the Act for stating the case to this Court for the purpose of answering the following questions of law: - "(1) Whether on the true construction of Section 12(1) of the Madhya Bharat Sales-Tax Act (Act No. 30 of 1950) the words "in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" qualify the word "erroneous" only or whether they qualify the words "illegal or improper" also; and (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Judge, Sales-Tax Appeals to the effect that Assessing Authority, Dhar, had no jurisdiction to assess M/s Mohatta Brothers, Indore, is ''illegal and improper" or whether it is "erroneous" within the meaning of Section 12 (1) of the said Act." 3. The Sales-Tax Commissioner took the view that the expression "in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" occurring in Section 12 (1) of the Act qualified only the preceding word "erroneous" and not the words "illegal or improper" and that if an order of the taxing authority was illegal or improper, then it could be set aside by the Commissioner in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction even though the order did not work to the prejudice of the revenue. The short question that arises in this reference is whether the aforesaid expression qualifies the Word "erroneous" only or whether it qualifies the words ''illegal or improper" also. On a plain reading of Section 12 (1) it is clear that the Commissioner has been given the power to disturb an order of the taxing authority only if it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It would be altogether anomalous to hold that an erroneous order can be set aside only if it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, but that if an order is technically illegal or improper, it has to be set aside irrespective of the fact whether it is or it is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. That apart, the word "erroneous," is, in our opinion, wide enough to include illegality or impropriety. An order which is illegal or improper is necessarily erroneous. If then, as we think under Section 12 (1) an illegal or improper or erroneous order cannot be interfered with unless the order itself is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the answer to the first question must be that the words "in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" qualify the word "order" taken together with the following words "illegal or improper or erroneous". If the element of prejudice is necessary in the case "illegality" or "impropriety" also, then the second question posed as to whether on the facts and circumstances the order of the Judge, Sales-Tax Appeals, was illegal and improper or whether it was erroneous does not call for any answer. 4. In the light of this opinion, the Commissioner shall now make an order upholding the decision of the Judge, Sales-Tax Appeals. There shall be no order as to costs of this reference.