https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405195 Revisional interference under Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act is not justified where the original authority has taken a possible view and the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. On the facts stated, the High Court noted that the goods vehicles were stationed for weighment and further transport, that Section 53(2)(d) did not apply, and that the limited penalty already imposed for six vehicles was supported by the record; the enhanced penalty under Section 53(2)(b) and the revisional enhancement were therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 19 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405195 Revisional interference under Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act is not justified where the original authority has taken a possible view and the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. On the facts stated, the High Court noted that the goods vehicles were stationed for weighment and further transport, that Section 53(2)(d) did not apply, and that the limited penalty already imposed for six vehicles was supported by the record; the enhanced penalty under Section 53(2)(b) and the revisional enhancement were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 19 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405195