TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rthy, Additional Government Advocate, for the respondent. JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the order dated July 18, 2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner for Commercial Taxes under section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, here inafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The assessee is a dealer and borne under files of LV0-015 and engaged in the activity of m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e interest of the Government revenue. A notice under section 64(1) of the Act was issued to the respondent. Though the respondent was served, they did not appear and filed their objections. Therefore, he proceeded to pass the impugned order pointing out the errors committed by the assess ing authority in the assessment order. However, in the operative portion of the order, both the orders of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal authority also com mitted some mistake. In the discussion, absolutely there is no reference to the order of the first revisional authority. Therefore, he submits that on the face of it, there is error apparent on the face of record which calls for inter ference. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that though in the discussion there is no reference to the order of the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has power to revise the said order of the first revisional authority suo motu, before he could set aside that order, he must record a finding that the said order is not only erroneous, but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is only then, he gets jurisdiction to interfere with the order and pass orders either on merits or set aside the order and remand the matter back for fresh d....