Revisional limitation under KVAT Act runs from initiation, so records call and notice within four years saved the proceedings.

Section 64(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was construed as barring revisional action only after four years from the original order, but the limitation was held to govern the initiation of revision rather than the final revisional order. Because the records were called for and notice was issued within four years, the proceeding was treated as having been initiated in time. Delay in service of notice did not defeat limitation, and earlier precedent was distinguished on the facts. The revisional proceedings were therefore held to be within time, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional Commissioner could pass a revisional order under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 after expiry of four years from the date of the original order.

Analysis: Section 64(3) bars exercise of revisional power after four years from the passing of the order sought to be revised. The limitation was construed as governing the commencement of revision, namely calling for and examining the records and taking a decision to initiate revision, and not the passing of the final revisional order. Since the records were called for and notice was issued within four years from the original order, the proceeding was held to have been initiated in time. The delay in service of notice did not alter the position, and the contrary reliance on earlier precedent was held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The revisional proceedings were held to be within limitation and the appeal was rejected.

---