9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent : Sri C S Patil, AGA JUDGMENT Appellant is calling in question the order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the 1st respondent - Revisional Authority under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'KVAT Act'). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Officers of the respondent - Authority had visited the premises of the appellant - Society on 14.08.2009 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as the First Appellate Authority suffered from illegality and resulted in loss to the exchequer warranting review the said order. It was specifically mentioned in the notice that if the appellant failed to appear at 11:00 a.m. on 21.07.2014, revising the orders of both the Authorities could be passed. It appears the appellant did not appear on the said date. To give one more opportunity, the 1s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty levied under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act by the first respondent is lacking in jurisdiction, opposed to law and liable to be set aside?" 5. We have heard Shri H.R.Kambiyavar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri C.S.Patil, learned AGA for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that no opportunity was given to the appellant; that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not have power to revise the order as also to impose the penalty, we are of the considered view that Section 64(1) of the Act gives the 1st respondent - Authority with ample power to modify the assessment or cancel the assessment or direct a fresh assessment. 9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that these appeals do not merit consideration, as there are no substantial questions of law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
