Karnataka High Court
M/S.Total Environment Building ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial on 7 October, 2009
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, L.Narayana Swamy
use for the present appellants; that the _..___authorities
functioning under the Act had no cheice but a law
that had been cieciared in terms of tlxejfii the
Supreme Court in the case
coammrtow us. sum c5:§_ 'A T % aw
{.2005} 141 src 298 [sci ti.'Vie'uOi' Law as had
been opined by the" had been
applied and foilowetzlt Jblytt of this court,
aifirmed Bench and that
matter c;-ctmrt rendered in writ
appeal fie'; 'oI4«[cofi;}""étt A1mexure-F] as per
- W» -m WIN' mmu Wm mmr'I40xIIfiol"%EP"hh\&'W uvwrn MWWWW WE" Wflfifiwflfifimfl
J1IdgI3flCfltVV'AdV{--Ltt€Ct was again subject matter of
appeal beforetéthevS1.1§re1ne" 'Cou1't and while examining this
A '!":e-tile»-."Supreme itseif had second thoughts abeut
tiie..eo:14ec1i*:ess%'orvV'(atI1e1wise of its eariier J udgnent rencieared
"in C'QRPORA'HON's ease {supra}
en; 'been so doubted in the case of 'LARSEN 85
t Lzmmp Am ANOTHER 21%. STATE or
fisaagixzaraxa AND ANOTHER' reported in [2003] 17 V82'
1 t t 1 t '450 [scl-
6
9. Sri. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant would
alse submit that fellowing these developments,» there is
another writ appeal entertained by another Beech of
this court and the matter is pending V '£his
matter shoum be admitted age: "the
awaiting further decision Qf_ t.he §3.u:1t:-ren3eT.{3o,1;11'1;;' V'
10. In the first f1nd'W21_d11e-Z ofveitiifle course of
action as suggestedgmby 1. fef {11e appeliant is
either feasibleor by this court
1 1. In thewvstatzjte has previded a
hierarchy etc, and speeiaiized
d.epartH;e:jf:ta1. ae.fl;efifies examine the cases and
oefacts and on law, it is eminently
desifabie_V£§iét'.§"$:;c§;"eeheme as envisaged in the statute itself
1.e,, in fiie ease Kamataka Value Added Tax Act, S1*1o§11cU3e aflowed £0 operate.
interferenm in this course of scheme under fhe writ j'e:a?isdieti0x1 may be possible, if at ail in a situation where an .. Wm w«\avsu.«;r"nwx2*"mum#"v. anyway '2m6'~'w)"e_¢e*-rtxzgas we gmmmgqmgmgwfi ggméem-3 gflvufli 'Jr mfiflg-mmgfiflfl mgwm Luwfi autherity purpertillg tr) exercise functions under the Act assumes jurisdiction not under the Act 0r«V.w:1'1i;Iee:4e.>§etfc:isi:'1g pewers and functions under the Ace autherities gossly misuses of abu3e;-3 the.__.V1'}:3fafer'VVoi* e*g:efi* vietimizes a given asseseee or-A dealer "to'jirre1evant considerafions.
13. Otherwise, ivvflile exercising Writ jurisdiction" _ the correctness or othenvise'"'ef.. eessed by the authorities but would 23:11 mistakes or erroneous ordeyfeé mariner as is provided by the Act itself. V_ _v 2 % V ' 3&5 " file "1:}i'ese--:{1t situation, we find that the law as Court that holds the field as of [flew is' 152$ : had been indicatefi and opined in ~ pewwpmm CORPORA'.HON's ease [supr 1. It the subsequent Bench of the Supreme Ceurt fzave expressed doubt about the Correctness of this of iaw. But, that in itself does not change the 8 constitutional position and legal msition and until and uniess the Supieme Court itself opines othezwiseflghe iaw as had been deelaxed in RAHEJA CaRPORATION's ease [supra] is the fiie law deciared by the Supreme Constitution of India is 'etliottlier courts in the country to mat not yet the High Court to eiflieifi apprehensierz abeut the C0IA'.t'€Ct1'1€'SVS_V:.(')i'£TV 'the Judgment of the Supreme "xbe:_"ttieV.'pre.i'ogative of the Supreme itSeli'iviics:1t_ feet Conn.
15. iibf"tiiie":eé:s:ei1; we are not inclined to accept the s'ti;fb':hissi{:;n"'eifSi£*i. Prasad, learzied cotmee} the the appellant these appeals and to keep these matters ._ await further decision of the Supreme Court. division Bench of this Court had aiready ayplied it tlfie as had been deeiareci by the Supreme Court in Bevsmpamm Cf£1RPORA'.IION's case [Supra], We can only foilow that and ciiemiss the appeais and Sri. Praead, learned counsel for the appeilaut also tmges us to do 30. w.......»..» "dl!6"3i .wM..w.w.w..W~m Maw.» wmuwwwmn we mmmmsmwmwm an-WW uwwim we K1'-wammfimfifi mmggwg fiwufi
16. However, 'this is also not mssibie for the simple reason that the learned singie Judge had jgnatter may go back to the statutory authorities: fiche stamtery remedy and the marker ha*.<i:*;g nof by the learned single Judge on ixigefits, We-"--:3{)v"fiot":pfopVose to enter upon an area on tl3e""n3;eri£s 0f"t¥1:es€$rd'e:r impugned in the writ petitions.
1?'. It is Q§.oe'11.. to eta: "avail of the statutory remedy ' :3. T1}seI;e: ?3::fe,_ appeals are dismissed at the tlnresifieleé éelmitted.
Misc. W. 9651 of 2009 for stay does not ..e(i:1siderati0n and is hereby dismissed. Sd/--
FUDGE Sd/"
JUDGE AN/~