P. Puttaraju—These twelve (12) appeals are filed under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act'). The same are directed against revision order dated 22nd May, 2012 concluded by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), VAT Division, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Revisional Authority' or for short, 'FRA') in Case No. JCCT/Admn./DWD/SMR-1/11-12. The FRA has exercised powers by invoking Section 63-A of the Act, to revise the reassessment orders dated 30th October, 2008 concluded under Section 39(1) of the Act for the tax periods of April 2006 to March 2007 by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-II), Navanagar, Hubli (for short, 'Assessing Authority' or 'AA'). Subsequent to the revision order dated 22nd May, 2012, the FRA has passed rectification order for the tax periods confining to April 2006 to February 2007 on 5th July, 2012, wherein the FRA has conceded certain mistakes apparent on records and accordingly the rectification order has been passed. Aggrieved by this revision order followed by rectification orders, the present appeals are preferred. There is a delay in filing the appeals by 132 days for which an Interim Application No. I has been filed for the condonation explaining the facts for the delay along with an affidavit. The same has been examined and the delay is due to awaiting of rectification order concluded by the FRA. Considering the same, the delay has been condoned and the appeals are admitted. In addition to this there is one more interim application vide I.A. No. III which is concerned with 'stay' being requested. The said IA has been disposed of by granting conditional stay and also directing to submit compliance for the same. The I.A. No. II is an application for advancement of the case which has been conceded.

2. The relevant facts and grounds of the appeals in brief are stated as thus:

(i) The appellant is a private limited company registered under KVAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, engaged in the business of manufacture of edible oil.

(ii) The manufactured products are also stock transferred to branches in other States.

(iii) The AA has concluded the reassessment orders under the Act on 30th October, 2008 which has been taken up for revision by the FRA and has issued revision order dated 22nd May, 2012.

(iv) The appellant submits that revision order passed by FRA revising the reassessment orders of the AA and consequential orders of levying interest and penalty respectively under Sections 36(1) and 72(2) of the Act for the tax period of April 2006, May 2006 to February 2007 and March 2007 are not sustainable in law or in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.

(v) The appellant urges that FRA erred in not applying the correct provisions of the Act and Rules irrespective of whether a claim has been made or not in the original return or in the reply. The FRA ought to have applied the correct provisions of the Act specifically Rule 131(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. In this regard, the appellant has cited several case-laws and in particular has extracted a particular portion of the judgment rendered in case of Narsepalli Oil Mills Vs. The State of Mysore, ILR (1973) KAR 1091 . The appellant relies on the fact that the Hon'ble High Court has decided that even if the assessee makes a mistake in submitting a return, is not precluded by any law from preferring an appeal and showing to the Appellate Authority that the sales are in fact not exigible to tax and such matter has to be examined and determine the question whether or not the sales are exigible to tax. Relying on this finding, the request is made to direct the FRA to apply the correct provision namely Rule 131(3) of the KVAT Rules.

(vi) The second contention is with respect to the computation of non-deductible input tax. The appellant submits that FRA erred in not considering the local sales out of inter-State consignment pur