ORDER V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. - These revision petitions were heard and reserved on September 24, 2007. Since order is not pronounced within three months, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, we got these matters listed for further hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government advocate are absent. We have perused the impugned common order challenged in these revision petitions to examine whether the questions of law framed in these petitions would arise for our consideration on the legal grounds urged therein. Question No. 2 has to be answered against the assessee for the following reasons : The proceedings for assessment of escaped turnover were initiated by the assessing officer by issuing show-cause notice on March 5, 1991. The assessee appeared before the assessing officer and produced certain documents. Thereafter, he did not turn up. The proceedings were concluded by passing assessment order on September 23, 1998. That order was affirmed by the first appellate authority holding that there is escaped turnover. The period of assessment is 1987-88. The limitation prescribed under section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is eight years after amendment to the said provision. Prior to the amendment 10 years was the period of limitation. The proceedings were initiated within the period of limitation. Therefore, the second question is answered against the assessee. In so far as the first question is concerned, notice was served on the assessee and he produced certain documents. On the basis of the report of the investigation cell of the Department regarding escaped turnover, the assessment order was passed, which has been confirmed by the first and second appellate authorities. The same is not shown to be erroneous by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having produced the documents, the assessee has not turned up. Therefore, the question of hearing the assessee does not arise, as it has not availed of the reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal was justified in deciding the merits of the case on the basis of available records after considering the factual and legal contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the first question is also answered against the petitioners. As regards question No. 3, opportunity was given to the assessee but the same was not availed of by it properly. Since notice was served upon the assessee, there is compliance with principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the first question is also answered against the petitioners. As regards question No. 3, opportunity was given to the assessee but the same was not availed of by it properly. Since notice was served upon the assessee, there is compliance with principles of natural justice. Even accepting the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner for the sake of arguments, the same is wholly untenable in law as it does not stand to reason in view of the fact the petitioner has availed of its statutory right under the provision of the KST Act by filing two statutory appeals, urging various legal grounds for setting aside the assessment order, the same is also considered by both the appellate authorities, after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity and concerned with the finding and reasons recorded by the assessing officer in fastening the sales tax liability upon the petitioner on the total turnover of the business of the petitioner. Levy of penalty under section 12A(1A) of the Act is justified as it is on the escaped turnover of the petitioner/assessee. The assessee has not sought for details of the intelligence report. Non-furnishing of the same cannot be urged as a grievance in these petitions and therefore question No. 4 is answered accordingly against the petitioners. Since the entire stock transfer was not shown in the declaration, the same is treated as inter-State sale and levy of 15 per cent tax thereon is justified. Question No. 5 is answered accordingly. For the reasons stated above, the revision petitions are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed as none of the questions of law framed in these petitions would arise for our consideration in exercise of this court's revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed, as the same are devoid of merit.