IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NOS.18411 OF 2018 AND 31527 OF 2018 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S.SRI.ANJANEYA AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HANAGAWADI APMC LINK ROAD, P.B.NO.10 GANGANAGARA, HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.A.K.PRASHANTH (BY SRI.RAVI L.VAIDYA, ADV. – ABSENT) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT-1 DAVANAGERE-577 601 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT-2 DAVANAGERE-577 601 (BY SRI.T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA) … PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 23.03.2018 AT ANNEX-C1 PASSED BY THE R-1 AND QUASHING THE ORDER DATED: 12.03.2018 AT ANNEX-C2 PASSED BY R-2 AND ETC.
THIESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Matters called twice. None appears for the petitioner. Petitioner has sought for quashing of orders dated 23.3.2018, 12.3.2018 and 23.3.2018 and demand notice dated 12.3.2018 at Annexures – C1, C2, D1 and D2 respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner has rushed to the Court without exhausting the statutory remedy available under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, Act. Therefore, writ petitions stand disposed off that writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 and relevant para No.20 reads as under:
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage form City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others(6), wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:- “The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) The petition reveals all material facts;
(c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) Grant of relief is against public police or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors”
(Underline emphasized) 3. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach appellate authority to avail statutory remedy of appeal. Such appeal shall be filed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. Appellate Authority is hereby directed to condone the delay, if any, in respect of filing such appeal during the period from the date of filing of writ petition till disposal of the present petitions.
Sd/- JUDGE BS