JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit , J.—This appeal is filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone I, Bangalore in No. ZAC-1/B.Dn/SMR-55 & 55-A/08-09 dated April 17, 2009 wherein in exercise of the powers under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the KST Act") and under section 15(2) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the KTEG Act"), the revisional authority has set aside the order passed in appeal No. KST/AP.471/2005-06 dated February 14, 2006 and also modified the order of assessment. The material facts leading up to this appeal are as follows : The assessee-appellant herein had filed return and the order of assessment was passed by the assessing officer--the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assts)-II, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore dated May 26, 2005 and the assessing officer concluded and determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs.5,15,87,395 and Rs.2,55,86,992 and levied tax at Rs.23,14,665. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the appellate authority-Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), DVO, Bangalore Division, Bangalore and the appellate authority by order dated February 14, 2006 reduced the amount of entry tax payable. On review of the said order passed by the appellate authority, the revisional authority found that the said order passed by the appellate authority was prejudicial to the revenue of the State. Therefore show-cause notices were issued under section 15(2) of the KTEG Act dated January 31, 2009 and under section 22A(1) of the KST Act dated March 3, 2009 which was served upon the assessee on March 7, 2009. On April 7, 2009, the assessee prayed for time as he had to trace the records and he was granted time of more than one month but there was no communication or written objections filed and also there was no appearance of the assessee and the time sought to reply the notice was not utilised by the assessee. On April 7, 2009, the assessee prayed for time as he had to trace the records and he was granted time of more than one month but there was no communication or written objections filed and also there was no appearance of the assessee and the time sought to reply the notice was not utilised by the assessee. Thereafter the assessment order and order passed by the appellate authority were considered and revised by the reviewing authority holding that the order passed by the appellate authority reducing the tax was set aside and levy of turnover tax under section 6B of the KST Act is applicable and the appellate order was set aside and also modified the order of assessment by order dated April 17, 2009. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the assessee. Originally it was numbered as S. T. A. No. 90 of 2009 and thereafter as TAET No. 10 of 2009. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the revisional authority exercising power under section 22A(1) of the KST Act is erroneous ; that sufficient, opportunity was not afforded to the appellant to substantiate his contention though the objections had been filed and the order passed by the appellate authority is not prejudicial to the revenue of the State though a proposal was made to set aside the order passed in appeal and modify the assessment order ; that no particulars of the change sought to be made in the order of assessment was notified as the same was not described in the show-cause notice and therefore, the order passed by the revisional authority is liable to be set aside. The counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the revisional order was not passed within the time prescribed under section 15B of the KTEG Act as the order has not been passed within three years as prescribed under section 15B of the Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the appellant had not availed of the opportunity granted to him and now it is not open for the appellant to contend that no opportunity was given. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the appellant had not availed of the opportunity granted to him and now it is not open for the appellant to contend that no opportunity was given. Though objections were filed to the show-cause notices, the same were not substantiated and therefore proposal was confirmed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that the revisional power has been exercised within time and it is not barred by time. 5. Having regard to the abovesaid contentions, the questions of law that arise for our determination are as follows : (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional order is barred by limitation under section 15B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, revisional was right in levying the tax on furnace oil purchased from IOCL on which collected entry tax ? (3) Whether the finding of the revisional authority treating the consumables as machinery parts and levying two per cent tax is illegal ? 6. On careful consideration of the material on record and the date of the order, it is clear that the date of disposal of the appeal, under section 13(5) of the KTEG Act was on February 14, 2006 and records were called for by the revisional authority on October 3, 2006 and the time available as per section 15B of the KTEG Act was three years from October 2, 2009 and the revisional authority has passed the order dated April 17, 2009 and therefore exercise of power by the revisional authority is in time. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law No. (1) against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by holding that the proceedings initiated by the revisional authority under section 15(2) of the KTEG Act is not barred by time. 7. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law No. (1) against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by holding that the proceedings initiated by the revisional authority under section 15(2) of the KTEG Act is not barred by time. 7. It is clear from the order passed by the revisional authority that the revisional authority has proceeded on the basis that no documents were produced before the assessing officer and further, though the appellate authority states that documents were produced during the pendency of the appeal and he has perused the same and arrived at the conclusion, the revisional authority has proceeded on the basis that no documents were produced by the assessee before the assessing authority and the appellate authority and records were forwarded to the revisional authority and the order passed by the revisional authority insofar as it modifies the order of the assessing authority and the appellate authority is based upon the said finding. However, the respondent was directed to produce the papers pertaining to original proceedings before the assessing officer, first appellate authority and the revisional authority. It is clear from the records produced before the assessing officer that all the records that have been referred to in the assessing officer were produced and even before the appellate authority, the papers pertaining to the appeal were made available before the first appellate authority and therefore the finding of the revisional authority that no documents were produced before the appellate authority and assessing officer and modifying the order passed by them is clearly erroneous. However, since the question of finding of fact has to be arrived at by the revisional authority on the basis of the documents available and the orders passed by the assessing officer and the appellate authority, it is clear that the said exercise on the question of fact has to be made by the revisional authority and not by this court. If the order passed by the appellate authority is found to be prejudicial or has caused loss to the revenue of the State, it is open to the revisional authority to modify the order passed by the appellate authority in accordance with law as per the proposition notice. If the order passed by the appellate authority is found to be prejudicial or has caused loss to the revenue of the State, it is open to the revisional authority to modify the order passed by the appellate authority in accordance with law as per the proposition notice. In view of the material found in the original records before the revisional authority, it is clear that the appellant herein was placed ex parte by the revisional authority and he was granted time once and thereafter since no reply was filed, the revisional authority has proceeded to pass an ex parte order in the absence of the assessee and having regard to the subject-matter of the revision and the proposal notice which was served, we hold that the order has not been passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice and accordingly in view of the abovesaid reasoning, the order passed by the revisional authority is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the revisional authority for passing fresh orders in accordance with law and therefore, it is not necessary for us to answer the substantial questions of law Nos. (2) and (3) as the said questions have to be considered and answered by the revisional authority afresh and do not require answer at the hands of this court, in this appeal. All the contentions of the parties regarding the said substantial questions of law are kept open to be urged before the revisional authority. Accordingly we pass the following order : The appeal is allowed in part. We hold that the proceedings initiated against the appellant herein by the revisional authority under the provisions of section 15(2) of the KTEG Act is justified. However, the order passed by the revisional authority impugned in this appeal dated April 17, 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the revisional authority for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. The appellant shall file objections to the show-cause notice before the revisional authority within six weeks from today and thereafter revisional authority shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law alter affording an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his contention and dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties regarding merits are kept open to be urged before the revisional authority.