N. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-asse. 'see has preferred this appeal against the order dated 7-7-2005 in Case No. SMR. KST. GLB/ cr. 02/05-06 by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-II. Bangalore the 3rd respondent, who has set aside the order of both the authorities and the assessmentorder and refund proceedings of the JCCT (Admn.), dated 1-3-20g1 and has revised the assessment granting the benefit of composition to the assessee. ( 2 ) THE appellant is a proprietary concern and a dealer registered under the Karnataka sales Tax Act. 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). During the year 1999-2000, he was engaged in the execution of works contract of Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited at different locations in the State of gulbarga. The assessing authority was the assistant Commissioner of Commercial taxes. 1st Circle, Gulbarga. relating to the assessment year 1999-2000. The appellant opted for payment of tax in terms of the composition provisions under S. 17 (6) of the Act. Liability to tax was discharged accordingly during the year 1999-2000. In the return filed by him he showed the total consideration received from the works executed or the relevant year as Rs. 96. 95,809/- out of which, contracts for Rs. 95,93,109/- were purely in the nature of labour contracts not involving any transfer of property in goods and only to the extent of Rs. 1,02,900/- there was transfer of property in the goods attracting liability to tax. Therefore, the appellant filed an application on 11-1-2001 requesting the authority to permit him to opt out of the composition scheme under S. 17 (6) of the Act and assessed in terms of the regular provisions of s. 5-B of the Act. The assessing authority entertained the request, passed the assessment order for the year 1999-2000 as on 12-2-2001 and determined Rs. 96,95. 809 as the total turnover and taxed the assessee to the extent of rs. 11. 810/ -. However the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 4. 47. 280/- towards tax. Therefore, the assessing authority issued notice in form No. 7 dated 12-2-2001 for refund of the amount of Rs. 4,35. 470/ -. On the basis of the aforesaid assessment order the assessing authority addressed a letter dated 26-2-2000 to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration ). 4. 47. 280/- towards tax. Therefore, the assessing authority issued notice in form No. 7 dated 12-2-2001 for refund of the amount of Rs. 4,35. 470/ -. On the basis of the aforesaid assessment order the assessing authority addressed a letter dated 26-2-2000 to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration ). Gulbarga Division forwarding also the assessment records and sought for permission for refund of the amount of Rs. 4. 35. 570/- to the assessee. By order dated 1-3-2001 the Joint Commissioner approved the proposal for refund. However, the Additional commissioner issued a notice dated 21-6-2005 to the assessee proposing to pass a revisional order to set aside the permission granted by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for refund of Rs. 4,35,470/- and also the assessment order passed under S. 5-B of the Act. The assessee filed reply objecting to the proposed action. The Additional Commissioner overruled the objections and passed the impugned order setting aside the order passed by the assessing authority on 12-2-2001 and also the order passed by the Joint commissioner approving the refund claimed by the assessee which is dated 1-3-2001 and proceeded to pass the assessment order under s. 17 (6) of the Act holding that the assessee is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3. 00 lakhs and directed the assessing authority la compute the tax once again and issue a revised demand notice. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee is before this Court in appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Additional Commissioner has issued a notice in [purported exercise of his power under S. 22-A and also has passed orders under the said provision. The said power to be exercised by the Addl. Commissioner is only against the order under s. 20 or S. 21 of the Act. In the inatant case, the order of assessment passed by the assessing officer for the approval of refund granted by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax do not fall within S. 20 or S. 21 of the Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated and the order passed thereon is one without jurisdiction and nullity and liable to be set aside. In the inatant case, the order of assessment passed by the assessing officer for the approval of refund granted by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax do not fall within S. 20 or S. 21 of the Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated and the order passed thereon is one without jurisdiction and nullity and liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) IN reply, learned Additional Government advocate while unable to dispute the fact that the order impugned is not an order under S. 20 and S. 21 of the Act, strenuously contended that since the assessee has not raised the objection regarding jurisdiction in theireply filed to the notice issued under S. 22-A the assessee is estopped from urging that ground in this appeal for setting aside the impugned order. In this connection she also brought to our notice S. 24-A of the Act which provides that objection regarding jurisdiction should be taken before the assessing authority at the earliest possible opportunity and the same having not been taken, the appellant is estopped from urging the jurisdictional point in appeal for the first time. ( 5 ) IN the light of the rival submissions made, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the order impugned is one without jurisdiction? ( 6 ) FROM the aforesaid facts, it is-, clear that the assessee did make a request for composition under S. 17 (6) of the Act and subsequently an application was made for assessment under S. 5-B. The said request was entertained by the assessing authority and assessee was assessed under S. 5-B of the Act holding that the assessee is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 11. 810/- as tax. Admittedly, the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 4. 47,280/- towards tax. Therefore, the assessing officer directed refund of excess amount paid in Rs. 4. 35,470 -. He addressed a letter to the Joint Commissioner seeking his permission for refund of the said amount and the Joint Commissioner has granted the permission to refund the said amount. The order of the assessing officer has not been challenged by the Department and it has become final. 4. 35,470 -. He addressed a letter to the Joint Commissioner seeking his permission for refund of the said amount and the Joint Commissioner has granted the permission to refund the said amount. The order of the assessing officer has not been challenged by the Department and it has become final. It is only on 21-6-2005, the additional Commissioner issued a notice under Section 22-A to the assessee calling upon him to show cause why the approval granted for refund should not be cancelled and also the order of the assessing officer under Section 5-B should not be set aside. The assessee filed his objections opposing such action. It is after overruling the objections, the impugned order is passed under Section 22-A of the Act. ( 7 ) THE question is whether the Additional commissioner had the power to revise the aforesaid order. In this regard it is necessary to look into his revisional power as contained in Section 22-A of the Act. which reads as under: "22-A. Revisional powers of Additional commissioner and Commissioner:- (1) The additional Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under section 20 or Section 21 of this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by any officer who is not above the rank of a Joint commissioner, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may. if necessary, stay the operation of such order for such period as he deems fit and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment" . ( 8 ) A reading of the aforesaid provision I makes it clear that the Additional Commissioner has been vested with the suo motupowers to call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceedings recorded under section 20 or Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, the power to be exercised by the Additional Commissioner under Section 22-A is limited to orders made under Section 20 or section 21. Therefore, the power to be exercised by the Additional Commissioner under Section 22-A is limited to orders made under Section 20 or section 21. In other words, the said power cannot be exercised to revise the orders which fell outside the purview of Sections 20 and 21. Section 20 deals with appeal orders by the appellate authority and Section 21 deals with order by the revisional authorities. There-fore, the impugned order do not fall under section 20 or 21 of the Act. The impugned order is made by the assessing authority under section 5-B of the Act and also the permission granted by the Joint Commissioner to refund the excess tax paid. Therefore, tine said order do not fall within the ambit of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. As a matter of fact, learned Additional Government Advocate also did not dispute this position. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the additional Commissioner under Section 22-A is one without jurisdiction and nullity and consequently the order passed under such provision is void ab initio. ( 9 ) IN so far as the contention that the objection to jurisdiction should have been taken in reply to the notice issued, and it cannot be raised for the first time in appeal, and Section 24-A is a bar is concerned, it has no substance. The objections to jurisdiction and when such objections are to be taken and the consequence of not taking the said objections are set out under Section 24-A of the Act which reads as under: "24-A. Objections to Jurisdiction.- No objection as to the territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of any assessing authority shall be entertained or allowed by any Court. Tribunal or authority in an appeal or revision, unless such objections was taken before the assessing authority at the earliest possible opportunity. " ( 10 ) A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it only deals with objection as to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. It does not deal with inherent lack of jurisdiction. The objection now taken in this appeal is not an objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction or the territorial jurisdiction the objection now raised is with regard to the inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is well settled law that when a Court or authority lacks inherent jurisdiction to exercise the power, even by consent, such a power cannot be conferred by the parties. It is well settled law that when a Court or authority lacks inherent jurisdiction to exercise the power, even by consent, such a power cannot be conferred by the parties. In view of the settled legal position, we do not find any substance in the said contention also. ( 11 ) IN view of the discussion made above, the impugned order passed by the Additional commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we pass the following order: the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is hereby quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.