The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Joint Commissioner had the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction for a period not exceeding four years prior to the passing of the order sought to be revised, as provided under Section 63A of the KVAT Act.

This Court by order dated 07.02.2014, having noticed that the Tribunal had framed two questions for its consideration, had admitted these revision petitions to adjudicate the very same questions framed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for adjudication and they read as under:

(1) “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the RA had the jurisdiction to invoke revision proceedings U/s. 63A of the Act?

(2) Whether, the turnover relatable to purchases of goods made from dealers availing of composition benefit U/s.15 is deductible from the total contract receipts for purposes of arriving at the taxable turnover?”

2. The issue involved in these revision petitions relates to invoking of suo moto revisional powers by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of the powers vested under Section 63A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘KVAT Act’). It has been contended by the revision petitioner that Joint Commissioner did not possess jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 63A of the Act on the ground that that said provision came to be inserted by Act No.4/2006 with effect from 01.04.2006 and as such, for the period anterior to 01.04.2006, Joint Commissioner cannot exercise the suo moto power to revise the order of assessment.

3. The petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the business of civil works contracts of construction of commercial and residential buildings and is registered under the provisions of the KVAT Act.

4. The dispute in the present revision petitions relate to the assessment year 2005-06 i.e., for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. For the said period, vide order dated 08.06.2006, the assessment was completed and the assessment order was passed under Section 38(1) of the KVAT Act. Invoking the provisions of Section 63A of the KVAT Act, which was inserted by the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2006 [Karnataka Act No.4 of 2006], the revisional authority issued notice for revising the order of assessment passed on 08.06.2006. A detailed reply was filed by the petitioner before the respondent Joint Commissioner. After considering the same, the revision was partly allowed in favour of the assessee. Challenging the order of the revisional authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT), which has been dismissed by order dated 27.06.2012. An objection was taken with regard to the applicability of Section 63A of the KVAT Act as the period of assessment was prior to 01.04.2006. Such objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal and the matter was dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, these revision petitions have been filed.

5. We have heard Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Atul K. Alur, on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, learned AGA appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Tribunal on merits of the case and limited his submissions only with regard to the applicability of Section 63A of the KVAT Act. The case of the petitioner admittedly relates to the period prior to the date on which the Act No.4 of 2006 had come into effect by which Section 63A was inserted. It has been submitted that in view of the fact that the said provision has not been given retrospective effect, the assessment order could not have been reopened and proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner by invoking the provision of Section 63A of the KVAT Act is without authority of law. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)I vs Vatika Township Private Limited (2014) 367 ITR 466.

7. Per contra, Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, learned AGA appearing for the respondent has submitted that in the present case, the question of provision being retrospectively made applicabl