ORDER N. Kumar, J.—The assessee has preferred this revision petition challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which has held that the appeal preferred by the assessee under section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is not maintainable. The assessee is a non-banking finance company registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Kamataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short hereinafter referred to as, "the KVAT Act"). It is engaged in the business of leasing of motor vehicles. After the introduction of the KVAT Act with effect from April 1, 2005, the assessee claimed transitional relief under section 18 of the KVAT Act by filing an application in form VAT 265 before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The assessee's claim was allowed and an order was passed under certificate in form VAT 270 dated January 3, 2006 granting transitional relief of Rs. 2,55,78,272 to the assessee. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) initiated suo motu revisional proceedings under section 63A of the KVAT Act by issuing a notice dated January 9, 2007 taking exception to the order granting transitional relief. After contest, the said order was set aside and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was directed to withdraw the transitional relief extended to the assessee. The said order came to be passed on March 24, 2007. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under section 63 of the KVAT Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that against the order passed under section 63A passed prior to August 1, 2008 no appeal lies under section 63 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Sri K.P. Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, assailing the impugned order contends that, section 63A was introduced on April 1, 2006, by way of an amendment. On August 1, 2008 the appeal provision was extended to the orders passed under section 63A. However, during this interregnum period, section 63 did not contain express words authorising an appeal under section 63A. However, sub-section (4) of section 63A made the orders passed under section 63A final subject to sections 63 and 64. On August 1, 2008 the appeal provision was extended to the orders passed under section 63A. However, during this interregnum period, section 63 did not contain express words authorising an appeal under section 63A. However, sub-section (4) of section 63A made the orders passed under section 63A final subject to sections 63 and 64. A harmonious reading of these provisions make it very clear that, even in the absence of an express provision in section 63, an appeal against an order under section 63A was maintainable. The order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is too technical and it is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that prior to August 1, 2008, no appeal was provided for against an order passed under section 63A. An appeal being a statutory remedy, unless the statute expressly confers such a right, a party cannot claim such a right as a matter of right in the absence of a statutory right. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal is not maintainable. 6. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that, in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act an appeal against a revisional order was also provided. When KVAT Act was enacted, section 63 provided for an appeal. At that point of time section 63A was not in the statute book. It was introduced for the first time with effect from April 1, 2008, by way of an amendment. Correspondingly they did not amend section 63 providing for an appeal against the order passed under section 63A. However, sub-section (4) of section 63A expressly stated that the order passed under section 63A is final subject to sections 63 and 64. It only means that if a party does not choose to challenge the order under section 63A by way of an appeal under sections 63 and 64, the order passed under section 63A would become final. The amendment which is now brought about to section 63 appears to be clarificatory in nature in view of the express provision contained in sub-section (4) of section 63A. If an appeal is not maintainable, it is always open to the party to challenge the same before this Court under article 226 as the statute by declaring it final cannot take away the power of judicial review of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. If an appeal is not maintainable, it is always open to the party to challenge the same before this Court under article 226 as the statute by declaring it final cannot take away the power of judicial review of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the amendment to section 63 incorporating a provision to make the order passed under section 63A as appealable under section 63 and the fact that the right of the assessee to challenge the order under section 63A before this Court cannot be disputed, in the facts of the case, we are of the view that the justice of the case would be met by remanding the matter back to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under section 63 even against an order passed under section 63A subsequent to August 1, 2008. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order : (a) Revision petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order is set aside. (c) The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority, i.e., the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, to restore the case to its original file and decide the appeal on the merits and in accordance with law. (d) Parties to bear their own costs. 7. In view of the disposal of the petition, Misc. Cvl. 7233 of 2011 filed for stay is dismissed as having become infructuous.