Revisional power under the KVAT Act extends to fresh assessment, but effective hearing is essential before revisional orders can stand.

Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was treated as conferring revisional power broad enough to modify an assessment, cancel it, or direct a fresh assessment, including the power to impose penalty. The Court also accepted that effective hearing remained material in revision proceedings; where the assessee had not been fully heard, the revisional order was not allowed to stand and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration after hearing the appellant. The proceedings were therefore reopened for reconsideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority had jurisdiction under the KVAT Act to modify the assessment, cancel the assessment, or direct a fresh assessment and impose penalty; (ii) Whether the impugned revisional order could be sustained when the assessee was not effectively heard.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority had jurisdiction under the KVAT Act to modify the assessment, cancel the assessment, or direct a fresh assessment and impose penalty.

Analysis: The notice issued by the revisional authority specifically indicated an intention to revise the orders of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority. Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was taken as conferring ample power to modify the assessment, cancel the assessment, or direct a fresh assessment. The challenge to the authority's competence to proceed on that basis was therefore rejected in principle.

Conclusion: The revisional authority possessed the requisite revisional power under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned revisional order could be sustained when the assessee was not effectively heard.

Analysis: Though the record showed that notices were issued, the Court accepted the request for one further opportunity in the interests of justice. Since the assessee sought to contest the revisional order and was directed to deposit costs, the matter was treated as warranting reconsideration by the revisional authority after hearing the appellant afresh.

Conclusion: The impugned revisional orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the revisional proceedings were reopened for a fresh decision in accordance with law after providing the appellant an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power under the KVAT Act may extend to modification, cancellation, or fresh assessment, but a revisional order is not fit to stand where the matter is remitted to secure a fair opportunity of hearing and fresh adjudication.

---