IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.56624 – 56625/2018 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
Mrs. B.R.NAGARANI W/O SRI RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.3001, VARASIDHI, 2ND MAIN, 17TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI M.THIRUMALESH, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KARNATAKA VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) 3.6, DVO-3, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.03.2017 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSD UNDER SECTION 38[7] OF THE KVAT ACT BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [AUDIT]-3.6 BENGALURU FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 IN CAS NO.287016959 ANNEXURE-A.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to accept notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 38 [7] read with Sections 72[5] & 36 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ['Act' for short] mainly on the ground that the assessments concluded by the prescribed authority relating to the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 are barred by limitation.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an unregistered dealer and as such Sub-section [2] of Section 40 of the Act gets attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The Appellate Authority can very well examine the aspect of limitation in considering the case including the merits of the case. The issue involved herein is a mixed question of facts and law and the same cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction.
5. A complete mechanism is provided under the provisions of the Act for the redressal of grievances, no writ petition is maintainable circumventing the alternative remedy of statutory appeal contemplated under the Act.
6. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available under the provisions of the Act. If such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered on merits without objecting to the aspect of limitation.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.