Karnataka High Court
M/S Aishwarya Fort vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2013
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.S.Indrakala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA
W.A.NOS.5182-5193 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/S AISHWARYA FORT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
MR ARUN KUMAR
S/O NARASIMHASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NEAR RTO OFFICE
TURUVANUR ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577 501. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri.RAJU.H.Y., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES IN KARNATAKA
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA
2
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
3. THE DIRECTOR
TOURISM DEPARTMENT
IST FLOOR, F BLOCK
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD
BANGALORE-560009
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERICAL TAXES
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES
COMMERICAL TAXES(ENFORCEMENT)
CHALAKERE
CHITRADURGA DIST
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
(AUDIT & RECOVERY)
CHITRADURGA. .. RESPONDENTS
(By SMT.SUJATHA.S., AGA.)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.5784-
95/2012 DATED 1.8.2012.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is by the appellant being aggrieved by the order passed in learned Single Judge in W.P.NOs. 5784-5795/2012 .dated 1.8.2012 dismissing the Writ Petitions questioning the legality of the reassessment order dated 20.1.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act on the premise that the assessee-Writ Petitioner can avail of the statutory remedy available under the Act.
2. The appeals are on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to notice that availability of the alternative remedy is not absolute bar in the Writ Petition in a case where alternative remedy was available and assessment order passed under very enactment namely Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The coordinate Bench of this Court had entertained the Writ Petitions and therefore the learned Single Judge could have entertained the Writ Petitions instead of dismissing the same on the premise of availability of alternative remedy. 4
3. Sri. Raju, H.Y., learned counsel appearing for the appellant requests for time to avail services of Senior Counsel to convince the court about the existence of a alternative remedy not being absolute bar. But the Writ Petitions had been entertained as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 13 SCC 55.
4. Learned Single Judge taking note of the observations made in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tondon & Others (AIR 2010 SC 3413) dismissed the Writ Petition reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy available under the statute.
5. Smt.S.Sujatha, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that even on merits of the matter, the issue raised is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Hotel Madhuvan International Private Limited in terms of the judgment dated 17.12.2008 rendered in Writ appeal 5 NO.212/2007 and connected cases, it is not necessary for us to go into this question.
6. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter is taken to the Supreme Court in appeal.
7. Be that as it may. These appeals are dismissed affirming the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. However, the appellant is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy. Without prejudice, these writ appeals are dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE RS/*