JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 18-7-2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner for Commercial Taxes under Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee is a dealer and borne under files of LVO-015 and engaged in the activity of manufacturing and selling of readymade garments. The Assessing Authority passed an order under Section 39(1) of the Act for the period from September 2006 to March 2007 wherein he has determined the output tax payable at Rs. 2,05,71,355/-. He has determined the eligible input tax at Rs. 34,45,309/-. Penalty of Rs. 14,190/- and interest at Rs. 42,564/- was also levied. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has initiated the revision proceedings under Section 63-A of the Act. The assessee filed his reply. After considering the said reply, the Revision Authority dropped the revision proceedings. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated proceedings under Section 64(1) of the Act on the ground that the order passed by the First Revision Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Government revenue. A notice under Section 64(1) of the Act was issued to the respondent. Though the respondent was served, they did not appear and filed their objections. Therefore, he proceeded to pass the impugned order pointing out the errors committed by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order. However, in the operative portion of the order, both the orders of the Assessing Authority as well as the First Revision Authority were set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is before this Court in appeal. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contended that though under Section 64(1) of the Act, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has suo motu power of revision, when once the assessment order is merged with the order of the First Revision Authority, unless he found that the order of the First Revision Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he could not interfere with the said order. Reading of the order makes it clear that it was only finding fault with the order passed by the Assessing Authority, though in the notice it was mentioned that the First Revision Authority also committed some mistake. Reading of the order makes it clear that it was only finding fault with the order passed by the Assessing Authority, though in the notice it was mentioned that the First Revision Authority also committed some mistake. In the discussion, absolutely there is no reference to the order of the First Revision Authority. Therefore, he submits that on the face of it, there is error apparent on the face of record which calls for interference. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that though in the discussion there is no reference to the order of the First Revision Authority, in the notice it is categorically mentioned that the error committed by the First Revision Authority is the same as that of Assessing Authority and the order passed by the First Revision Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority and that no case for interference is made out. 4. The facts are not in dispute. When once the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 63-A of the Act against the order passed by the Assessing Authority and after consideration of the said order on merits, dropped the proceedings, the order of Assessing Authority has merged with the order of the First Revision Authority. Under Section 64(1) of the Act, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has power to revise the said order of the First Revision Authority suo motu, before he could set aside that order, he must record a finding that the said order is not only erroneous, but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is only then, he gets jurisdiction to interfere with the order and pass orders either on merits or set aside the order and remand the matter back for fresh disposal. 5. In the entire order, there is no finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the order passed by the First Revision Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, on the contrary, he has looked into the order passed by the Assessing Authority and has pointed out the errors committed by the said Authority. For that reason, he has set aside the order passed by the First Revision Authority which is patently wrong. For that reason, he has set aside the order passed by the First Revision Authority which is patently wrong. In that view of the matter, the only proper course to do justice is to set aside the said order and remand the matter back to the Revision Authority to consider the case on merits keeping in mind the scope of suo motu revision and observations made in this order. The assessee shall appear before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on service of notice and he would be heard in the matter before passing the order on merits. Ordered accordingly.