BHARATH BHATT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE seventeen (17) appeals are filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contesting the revision order dated 2nd July, 2013 in case No. JCCT/ADMN/DVO -02/SMR/CR/2012 -2013 for the tax periods of April 2008 to February 2009 and April 2009, May 2009, November 2009, December 2009, January 2010 and February 2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), DVO -2, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'First Revision Authority' or for short as 'FRA'). By the said impugned order, the FRA has revised the orders dated 5th November, 2012 passed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Act) for the years 2008 -2009 and 2009 -2010, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit -22), DVO -2, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessing Authority' or for short as 'AA'). Brief facts. - -

(2.) GROUNDS of appeal. - -

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel after reiterating the grounds urged, highlights the fact that the FRA has not made out the case for revision as per Section 63 -A of the KVAT Act, 2003 which stipulates that for the purpose of revision, the order of the lower authority should be erroneous in nature and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue which has not been established while reviewing the AA's order and while finalizing the revision proceedings culminating in the impugned revision order. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by our Hon'ble High Court in the case of Spaceway Design Industries, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka : 2001(50) Kar. L.J. 378 (HC) (DB) : : (2001)123 STC 607 (Kar.) (DB),wherein it has been held that it is very much necessary that a proper speaking order has to be passed and that the conclusion arrived in that order shall be supported by a process of logical reasoning and justifications. According to the learned Counsel, this element is absent in the impugned revision order and hence liable to be set aside. In addition to this, the Counsel highlighted the fact that the impugned revision orders are passed under Section 63 -A of the Act for the 'year' as a whole for the years 2008 -2009 and 2009 -2010, ignoring the provisions of Section 2(33) of the Act read with Rule 37 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The Counsel urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and exemption be accorded and alternatively prayer that the matter may be remanded to the FRA to act in accordance with law.