H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) STATE of Karnataka, being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Karnataka Appellant tribunal, Bangalore in S. T. A Nos. 860-867/1998 dated 10. 12. 1999, is before this Court in these revision petitions by the said order, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the joint commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Gulbarga, in the present case Revisional authority for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94. ( 2 ) FACTS for the purpose of disposal of these revision petitions are as under; Respondent herein is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is also a registered dealer both under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax act, herein after referred to as KST Act and CST Act respectively. The trade in which it is engaged is primarily to manufacture and sell cement packed in gunny bags/plastic bags. The assessing Authority while framing the original Order for the assessment years 1986 to 1994, had exempted the turnover pertaining to the packing materials wherever they had suffered local taxes earlier and had levied taxes as applicable to the packing materials. ( 3 ) THE Assessing Authority having entertained a doubt, and opining that the turnover of the dealer in respect of the assessment years in questions had been assessed at a lower rate than the rate at which it is assessable under the Act, had initiated proceedings under Section 12a of the act to re-compute the escaped turnover. The assessee instead of filing any objections to the proposal made in the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Authority had approached this court, inter alia contending, apart from others the jurisdiction of the authority to initiate the proceedings under Section 12a of the Act to bring to tax the assessed turnover and also had questioned the validity or otherwise of Section 5 (3-D) of the Act, which provided the same rate of tax on containers and contents. The said petition came to be rejected by this Court following its earlier decision in the case of RANGANATHA ASSOCIATES V. STATE OF karnataka, 78 SCT 1. The assessee had carried the matter in a special leave petition before the Apex Court. The said petition came to be rejected by this Court following its earlier decision in the case of RANGANATHA ASSOCIATES V. STATE OF karnataka, 78 SCT 1. The assessee had carried the matter in a special leave petition before the Apex Court. The Apex Court had set aside the proceedings initiated by the Assessing authority and had further directed the Assessing Authority to re-frame the Orders of assessment by following certain guidelines issued by them in the course of their order. The decision of the apex Court is reported in 101 STC 168. The directions issued by the Apex Court are as under: "the appeals are, therefore, allowed and the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants are disposed of with the direction that the liability of the appellants for sales tax under Section 5 (3-D) on the gunny bags/ plastic bags in which the cement manufactured by the appellants is packed for sale would have to be determined after investigation into the facts and determining what were the ingredients of the contract and the intention of the parties. " (Emphasis supplied by us) ( 4 ) AFTER disposal of the civil appeals by the Apex Court, the Assessing authority has passed fresh assessment Orders for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94 by following the directions and guidelines issued therein, exempting the packing materials or subjecting packing materials to tax at the lower rate. ( 5 ) THE matter did not rest there. The Revisional Authority, keeping in view the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of PREMIER BREWERIES V. STATE OF KERALA, 108 STC 598 initiated revisional proceedings to revise the assessment orders passed for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94 by invoking his revisional powers under Section 21 (2) of the Act. A show cause notice in that regard was served on the assessee inter alia directing him to show cause why the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment years in question should not be revised. The assessee had filed its objections before the revisional authority inter alia contending that the orders of assessment framed by the Assessing Authority was in conformity with the directions and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in assessee's own case and therefore the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction and authority of law to revise the concluded assessment orders passed by the Assessing Authority. However, the Revisional authority, keeping in view the law declared by the Apex Court in Premier Breweries' case has revised the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority following the directions and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Vasavadatta Cement's case, on the ground that the orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and further not in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in premier breweries' case. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Revisional Authority, the assessee had filed appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA Nos. 860-867/1998. The Tribunal has allowed the appeals and has set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority in revising the order of assessment framed by the Assessing Authority for the Assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94. It is the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Tribunal that is the subject matter of these revision petitions. ( 7 ) SRI B. Anand learned Government Advocate appearing for the revenue would submit, that the revisional Authority following the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Premier Breweries' case has rightly invoked his revisional jurisdiction, to revise the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94. Since those orders are found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in view of the law down by the Apex Court in its subsequent decision, viz. , Premier Breweries' case and therefore the tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeals filed by the assessee and therefore requests this Court to set aside those orders and confirm the orders passed by the Revisional Authority. In aid of his submissions, the learned Counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in premier Breweries' case (108 STC 598 ). ( 8 ) PER contra, Smt. Rama, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit, that since there was no irregularity or illegality in the orders of assessment passed by the Assessing authority, the Revisional Authority could not have invoked his jurisdiction under Section 21 of the act to revise the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute nor it can be disputed by the revenue that the respondent herein aggrieved by the order of re-assessment passed by the Assessing Authority invoking his powers under section 12a of the Act had approached this Court in not only questioning the said order but also the constitutional validity or otherwise of Section 5 (3-D) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, which provided that where goods sold or purchased are contained in containers or are packed in any packing materials liable to tax under the Act, the rate of tax and the point of levy applicable to such turnover of such containers or packing materials shall be the same as those applicable to the goods contained or packed. This Court had rejected the Writ Petition and thereafter, the assessee had carried the matter in an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in the very assessee's case, had directed the Assessing Authority to re-frame the assessment order to determine the liability of the assessee for sales tax under Section 5 (3-D) on the gunny bags/plastic bags in which the cement manufacture by the assessee is packed for sale after investigation in to the facts and determining what were the ingredients of the contract and the intention of the parties. The Assessing Authority, following the directions issued by the Apex court has passed fresh assessment orders for the assessment years in question. Now the question that requires to be considered and decided by this Court is, whether the Revisional Authority is justified in revising the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment years in question, on the ground that the assessment orders are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and not in conformity with the law laid down by the subsequent decision of the Apex court in Premier Breweries' case, in a case where the assessment orders were passed following the directions and guidelines issued by the Apex Court. ( 10 ) TO answer the issue raised by us for our consideration and decision, omitting what is not necessary, the provisions of Section 21 of the Act requires to be noticed. Therefore, the said section is extracted as under: 21. ( 10 ) TO answer the issue raised by us for our consideration and decision, omitting what is not necessary, the provisions of Section 21 of the Act requires to be noticed. Therefore, the said section is extracted as under: 21. Revisional Powers of Joint Commissioners:- The Joint Commissioners may of his own motion call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by any officer not above the rank of a Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceeding in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. " the ingredients of the aforesaid provision are as under: the Joint Commissioner, may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceedings recorded under the provisions of this Act by an officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to regularity of such proceedings in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thereafter, he can pass such orders as the circumstances of the case justify. The joint commissioner can invoke this section only if the following factors co-exits : i) There should be a proceeding under the Act; ii) The assessing officer should have passed an order in such proceeding; iii) The joint Commissioner should consider that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. ( 11 ) THE basis for the exercise of the power of revision is the existence of an order. In other words, there must be an order in existence which Joint Commissioner seeks to revise. Nextly, each and every order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be revised by the Joint commissioner under Section 21 of the Act. This provision can be invoked only when the Joint commissioner prima facie finds that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. An order that is erroneous must also have resulted in loss of revenue or must have been prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This provision can be invoked only when the Joint commissioner prima facie finds that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. An order that is erroneous must also have resulted in loss of revenue or must have been prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Unless both these factors co-exist simultaneouly, the Joint Commissioner cannot resort to Section 21 of the Act. If one or the other factor is absent, the Joint Commissioner cannot exercise this revisional power. The error envisaged in section has to be an error of fact or law and not one which depends on possibilities or guess work or suspicion. It includes cases of under assessment, allowances of deductions in excess of what is permissible under the Act; orders of assessment that are not in accordance with law, wrong interpretation of fact or law are mistakes apparent from the record as a consequence of which the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised, so on and so forth. ( 12 ) KEEPING in view the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the revising authority under Section 21 of the act, let us now notice the fact situation in the instant case. The respondent/dealer herein had not only questioned the order of re-assessment passed by the assessing Authority before the Supreme Court but also the constitutional validity or otherwise of section 5 (3-D) of the Act. The Apex Court was pleased to allow the civil appeal and was further pleased to direct the Assessing Authority to pass fresh order for the assessment years in question, after investigation into the facts and further determining what were the ingredients of the contract and intention of the parties. The Assessing Authority, has faithfully followed the directions issued by the Supreme Court and has completed the assessment proceedings. The directions issued by the Apex Court is binding on the Assessing Authority and the same requires to be obeyed by him in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Assessing Authority, has faithfully followed the directions issued by the Supreme Court and has completed the assessment proceedings. The directions issued by the Apex Court is binding on the Assessing Authority and the same requires to be obeyed by him in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Revisional authority either in his show cause notice issued under subsection (2) of Section (21) of the Act or in the orders passed by him, does not find fault with the orders of assessment passed by the assessing Authority on the ground that the said orders are contrary to the directions and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the assesse's own case, but observes, that, in view of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Premier Breweries' case the orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. ( 13 ) IN our opinion, the order passed by the Assessing Authority by following the directions and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the assesse's own case cannot be said to be erroneous. When there is a direction by a superior forum, the subordinate authority is bound to follow such directions while computing the tax liability of a dealer of a particular transaction. That is what has been done by the Assessing Authority for the assessment years in question in the assessee's case. Therefore, an order passed by the Assessing Authority following the guidelines and directions issued by the Supreme Court cannot be said to be erroneous and such an order could not have been revised by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes/ Revisional Authority by invoking his powers under Section 21 of the Act in view of the language employed by the legislature in the aforesaid section. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, Sri Anand, learned Government Advocate would submit, that in view of subsequent decision of the Apex Court in premier Breweries' case wherein the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Vasavadatta cements case, the Revisional Authority was justified in invoking his revisional jurisdiction. This submission, in our opinion, has no merit. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, Sri Anand, learned Government Advocate would submit, that in view of subsequent decision of the Apex Court in premier Breweries' case wherein the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Vasavadatta cements case, the Revisional Authority was justified in invoking his revisional jurisdiction. This submission, in our opinion, has no merit. In our view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Premier Breweries case would not give jurisdiction to the Revising authority to revise an order of assessment passed by the assessing Authority by following the directions and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in assessee's own case. Therefore, since one of the ingredients of Section 21 of the Act is absent in these proceedings, the revisional authority could not have invoked his Revisional powers to revise the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1993-94. In view of the above, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the revising Authority. Accordingly, petitions deserve to be rejected and they are rejected. Ordered accordingly.