B. RANGASWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI ADITHYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2024, PASSED IN STA.No.66/2023 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2016 PASSED IN VAT.AP.412 AND 413/2012-13 ON THE FILE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES -2), SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU FOR THE TAX PERIOD 2007-08. (APPEALS THIS PETITION along with I.A.Nos.1/2025 AND 2/2025, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Smt. Shyamala V. Devagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner-Assessee and Sri Adithya Vikaram Bhat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-Revenue. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5075-DB STRP No. 28 of 2025 HC-KAR

The above Sales Tax Revision Petition was disposed of on

29.01.2006. Before finalisation of the order, learned Additional Government Advocate filed a memo for 'Being Spoken To'. Again the matter was listed on 09.02.2026 and finally heard again on 12.02.2026.

This Sales Tax Revision Petition, filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act’), is preferred by the dealer challenging the order dated

16.02.2024 passed in STA No.66/2023 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the KAT’).

The re-assessment order under Section 39(1) of the Act was passed on 26.06.2010. A rectification application seeking correction of the said order dated 26.06.2010, filed on

12.07.2010, came to be rejected by an endorsement dated

24.05.2012. Aggrieved by the endorsement, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 62(1) of the Act before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

4.1 Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rectification application seeking correction of the appellate order dated 22.03.2016, - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5075-DB STRP No. 28 of 2025 HC-KAR which came to be rejected on 23.09.2020. The petitioner again filed a rectification application dated 21.02.2022, which was rejected on 24.02.2023. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the rectification application dated 24.02.2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the KAT under Section 63 of the Act. The KAT rejected the appeal as not maintainable.

Smt. Shyamala v. Devagiri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order passed under Section 62(6) read with Section 69(1) of the Act partakes the character of an appellate order under Section 62 and, therefore, an appeal under Section 63 before the KAT is maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the order passed under Section 69 merges with the order passed under Section 62 and, consequently, an appeal under Section 63 is again maintainable. It is contended that the KAT has committed an error in rejecting the appeal as not maintainable.

Per contra, Sri Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the re-assessment order was passed on 26.06.2010, against which frivolous rectification applications were filed. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5075-DB STRP No. 28 of 2025 HC-KAR Against the endorsement rejecting the rectification applications, an appeal was preferred before the FAA, wherein the appeal came to be allowed in part by order dated 22.03.2016. Thereafter, further rectification applications were filed seeking rectification of the order passed by the FAA, which came to be rejected by order dated 24.02.2023.

6.1 Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has adopted a delay tactic and, in abuse of the process of law, has filed successive rectification applications without challenging either the re-assessment order or the order passed by the FAA. It is contended that the manner in which the rectification applications have been filed clearly amounts to abuse of process. Learned counsel further submits that the KAT has rightly rejected the appeal as not maintainable.

6.2 Learned counsel further submits that, for maintaining an appeal under Section 63 of the Act, deposit of 30% of the disputed amount is mandatory and that sub-section (4) of Section 63 has not been complied with. It is submitted that, even after such defects were notified, learned counsel for the petitioner remained absent. In the absence of compliance, the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5075-DB STRP No. 28 of 2025 HC-KAR KAT had no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.

Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the petition papers.

Section 63(1) of the Act provides for an appeal before the KAT against an order passed under Section 62 or Section 63A, within a period of sixty days from the date on which the order is communicated to the dealer. Section 69 of the Act empowers the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority, or the Revisional Authority to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record.

8.1 Sub-section (4) of Section 69 provides that an order passed under Section 69(1) shall be deemed to be an order passed under the same provision under which the original order was passed. In the present case, the rectification application was filed seeking rectification of the order passed by the FAA under Section 62 of the Act. By virtue of Section 69(4), the order passed under Section 69(1) is to be treated as an order passed under Section 62. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5075-DB STRP No. 28 of 2025 HC-KAR

8.2 Section 69 of the Act reads as under:

Rectification of mistakes.- (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, the prescribed authority, appellate authority or revising authority, may, at any time within five years from the date of an order passed by it, amend such order. (2) Any amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or otherwise increasing the liability of the person concerned shall not be made unless the prescribed authority, appellate authority or revising authority, as the case may be, has given notice to the person concerned of its intention to do so and has allowed the person concerned the opportunity of showing cause in writing against such amendment. [(2-A) x x x x x.] (3) Where an order has been considered and decided in any proceedings by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided. (4) An order passed under sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be an order passed under the same - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5075-DB STRP No. 28 of 2025 HC-KAR provision of law under which the original order, the mistake in which was rectified, has been passed.

8.3 Sub-section (4) of Section 69 declares that an order passed under Section 69(1) shall be deemed to be an order passed under the same provision under which the original order was passed.

8.4 According to sub-section (4) of Section 69, it is only when a rectification application is entertained and the mistake is rectified, the order of rectification shall be deemed to be an order passed under the same provision of law. In the present case, the application seeking rectification of the order passed in appeal has been rejected. In the case of rejection of such an application, the deeming fiction under sub-section (4) of Section 69 is not attracted. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable against the rejection of the application in view of the language employed in Section 63.

In the light of the above, the KAT, in the impugned order, has rightly rejected the appeal as not maintainable under Section 63 of the Act. We find no infirmity in the order of the KAT warranting interference in this revision petition. The order - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:5075-DB STRP No. 28 of 2025 HC-KAR of the KAT is in conformity with the provisions of Sections 63 and 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the sales tax revision petition stands dismissed. As we have dismissed the STRP upholding the order of the KAT, I.A. No.1/2025 seeking condonation of 195 days delay in preferring the above petition is rejected. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9