https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763999 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. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jan 2025 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763999 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. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763999