https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156848 A Karnataka High Court note on section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 states that delay of 1,633 days in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant, an erstwhile partner, had not been shown to have earlier notice of the Commissioner's order and the Revenue produced no contrary material. It further states that suo motu revision is within limitation if the Commissioner calls for the records within the prescribed period; the decisive date is the initiation of revision, not the date of the final revisional order. Applying that construction, the revisional action was treated as timely and valid, and the Revenue's order was sustained. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:06:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156848 A Karnataka High Court note on section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 states that delay of 1,633 days in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant, an erstwhile partner, had not been shown to have earlier notice of the Commissioner's order and the Revenue produced no contrary material. It further states that suo motu revision is within limitation if the Commissioner calls for the records within the prescribed period; the decisive date is the initiation of revision, not the date of the final revisional order. Applying that construction, the revisional action was treated as timely and valid, and the Revenue's order was sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156848