Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisional orders passed under Section 63A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were liable to be quashed for want of a proper opportunity of hearing.
Analysis: Section 63A(1) requires that, before any revisional order is made, the affected person must be given an opportunity of being heard. The record showed that although time was granted after appearance of the petitioner's representative, no specific date was fixed for production of the records and the impugned orders were passed before the period sought for placing the material had expired. On these facts, the petitioner was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to present its case and the revisional authority proceeded without considering the material that was to be produced.
Conclusion: The revisional orders and consequential demand notices were quashed for violation of the requirement of hearing and natural justice.
Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by setting aside the impugned tax orders and directing fresh consideration of the revision proceedings after giving the petitioner an effective opportunity to appear and produce records.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional statute mandates a hearing, an order passed before giving a meaningful opportunity to place relevant material on record cannot be sustained.