FIRST REALITY Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order dated January 15, 2009, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, wherein the revision initiated under section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter called "the Act") is concluded by setting aside the order passed in appeals by the appellate authority and order passed by the Joint Commissioner in favour of the investigating officer which demands interest. The material facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that delay has been properly condoned by the appellate authority since notice had not been served upon the appellant and on the other hand, having accepted the explanation offered by the appellant, delay has been condoned by holding that the service of notice on the appellant was not proper. Therefore, order of condoning the delay is justified. The revisional authority could not have set aside the order of the appellate authority condoning the delay and even on the merit, as no loss of revenue is caused. Therefore, the order of the revisional authority is liable to be set aside.