JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—These appeals have come up for admission. As notice was issued to Sri. K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate and with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal. The appeals by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act"), directed against the order dated July 7, 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-I, Bangalore, in No. ZAC-1/BCD-1/SMR-33/09-10 exercising his revisional jurisdiction under section 64(1) of the Act, revising and setting aside the order dated October 24, 2007 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), DVO-I and III, Bangalore, in KVAT. AP. Nos. 521 to 542/2007-08, who in turn set aside the reassessment order passed by the assessing authority dated July 23, 2007 for the period from April 2005 to January 2007. 2. The assessee is a registered dealer dealing with agricultural products including sowing seeds and had filed its monthly returns of the turnover in terms of the provisions of section 35 of the Act for the period referred to above. The initial returns had been accepted and assessments concluded on the basis of the return. Later, the assessments had been reopened on noticing that the assessee had claimed input-tax rebate erroneously and therefore the assessing authority had issued notice under section 39 of the Act. The assessing authority in particular, had directed the appellant-dealer to produce relevant books of accounts supporting the claim made towards input-tax rebate in terms of section 10(1) read with section 17(1) of the Act. 3. The assessing authority noticed that the assessee was not responding to the same inspite of several opportunities and accordingly concluded the re-assessment on best judgment basis under section 39(1) of the Act as per his order dated July 23, 2007. 4. The appellant-dealer appealed against this order to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and met with success, but not to the full extent. The Appellate Commissioner opined that the statement made by the appellant-dealer claiming input-tax rebate was good enough and therefore proceeded to set aside the reassessment order as also the order levying penalty under section 72 of the Act and relieved the assessee of the tax liability as well as penalty and remanded the matter to the assessing authority. 5. The Appellate Commissioner opined that the statement made by the appellant-dealer claiming input-tax rebate was good enough and therefore proceeded to set aside the reassessment order as also the order levying penalty under section 72 of the Act and relieved the assessee of the tax liability as well as penalty and remanded the matter to the assessing authority. 5. This order dated October 24, 2007 was revised by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising his revisional jurisdiction under section 64 of the Act. 6. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued notice to the assessee, heard the assessee and particularly as there was an embargo on the appellate authority-Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to remand the matter to the assessing authority in the wake of the provisions of section 62(6) (a) (i) of the Act which specifically mandated the Appellate Commissioner not to remand the matter to make a fresh assessment or fresh order, but to proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits as it deems fit and if necessary by taking additional evidence. 7. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes found that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) was also not valid on the merits of the order. Opining so, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) remanding the matter to the assessing authority and restored the reassessment order passed by the assessing authority. 8. It is this order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes which is challenged in these appeals. 9. Sri Satyanarayan, learned counsel for the appellant-dealer, has urged several contentions including submission that the dealer had produced commensurate books of accounts and the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) was fully satisfied with the same; that the period of reassessment included the initial three months of assessment period from the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and therefore the initial concession shown for the transitory period should have been extended; that no penalty or interest could have been levied under section 72 of the Act for the months of April to June 2005 and levy of penalty for this period also is clearly erroneous. 10. 10. On the other hand, Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Revenue seeks to support the Order by pointing out that not only the assessing authority had observed non co-operative attitude and non-production of commensurate books of accounts to make good the claim towards input-tax rebate as claimed by the assessee, but the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has also examined this aspect and has clearly characterized accepting the claim statement of the dealer by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) does not amount to evidence on record to substantiate the claim. 11. The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 having come into force from April 1, 2005 for the first three months of the commencement of the Act, the appellant-dealer had been given some concession subject to claim being genuine and supported by the books of accounts, but there is no blanket concession forever. 12. We notice that while the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is justified in exercising his revisional jurisdiction under section 64 of the Act to set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) as the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) had acted clearly in contravention of the provisions of section 62(6)(a) of the Act by remanding the matter to the assessing authority, at the same time, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should have ensured that the appellant-dealer was given full opportunity and the matter remanded to the appellate authority, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), and in view of the order of the Additional Commissioner perhaps an opportunity to adduce further evidence which was a possibility before the appellate authority is being lost and the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should not have pre-empted this opportunity available to the appellant. 13. It is not necessary for us to go into other merits of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as it would have been appropriate for the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and to remand the matter to Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) for disposal of the appeal on merits rather than to remand the matter to the assessing authority. 14. 14. Though it is contended by Sri Satyanarayan, learned counsel for the appellant, that even as certified by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), the assessee had produced all books of accounts, etc., the question is as to whether the production of books of accounts was in the context of the claim of input-tax rebate in terms of section 10 read with section 17 of the Act and producing general books of accounts is of no avail when claim is under the specific provision and in respect of particular nature of transaction. 15. It is therefore that we also direct the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) to whom the matter is now remanded to examine the appeal afresh on merits, to give opportunity to the appellant-dealer if so desired to produce additional evidence and to consider the same along with the available material and to pass order afresh in the appeal of the dealer. 16. In the result, these appeals are allowed. 17. The orders passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) are both set aside and the matter remanded to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) to dispose of the appeals preferred under section 62 of the Act on the merits. 18. However, Mr. Satyanarayan, learned counsel for the appellant requests for a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the matter expeditiously. 19. It is for the appellant to appear and co-operate for disposal of the appeal expeditiously and for such purpose, the appellant shall appear before the appellate authority on April 2, 2013 without waiting for any issue of further notice by the appellate authority. The appellate authority to take up the matter on that day and to proceed further or fix any other day to the convenience of the parties and the Appellate Commissioner.