IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.8154/2019 (T – CST) BETWEEN:
M/s. MADHU FABS PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT No.150, KIADB PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA 3RD PHASE, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560058 [TIN No.: 29680067829] REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S.K.MURALEEI. …PETITIONER [BY SRI MALLAHA RAO.K., ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA II FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [KARNATAKA] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA KALIDASA MARG, GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [AUDIT]-6.7, KIADB COMPLEX BLOCK-B, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA 4TH PHASE, 2ND STAGE, 14TH CROSS BENGALURU-560058. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DEMAND DATED 07.11.2017, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS BY THE RESPONDENT No.3, VIDE ANNEXURES-E AND F; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned counsel Sri.T.K.Vedamurthy accepts notice for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order and demand dated 07.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 and the recovery proceedings thereon initiated.
3. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ['CST Act' for short] as well as the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ['KVAT Act' for short]. Relating to the tax periods 2011-12, the respondent No.3 – prescribed authority concluded the re-assessment proceedings vide order dated 07.11.2017, after issuing notices dated 29.05.2017 and 22.06.2017. The petitioner has submitted his reply/objections vide letter dated 14.06.2017. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the first proposition notice dated 29.05.2017, the tax period is mentioned as April 2012 to March 2013 wherein the tax periods relates to April 2011 to March 2012.
4. It is apparent that the said mistake has been rectified by the respondent – prescribed authority vide notice dated 22.06.2017 wherein it is mentioned as April 2011 to March 2012. Pursuant to the objections/reply filed by the petitioner, the respondent – prescribed authority having considered the same has passed the re-assessment order which is indisputably an appealable order.
5. It is well settled law that this Court has to be circumspect in entertaining the writ petition when there is an alternative and efficacious remedy – statutory appeal available under the KVAT Act. In the circumstances, the factual aspects being involved in this writ petition, it is appropriate for the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal provided under the KVAT Act. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
If such an appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits without objecting to the aspect of limitation.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.