IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.54010 OF 2018 (T-RES) Between:
M/s. Yenepoya Medical College Hospital Pharmacy, D.No.2-331/15, Nityanand Nagar, Deralakatte, Mangaluru – 575 018. (Represented by its Partner Yenepoya Mohammed Farhaad). …Petitioner (By Sri. Atul K. Alur, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Finance Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Audit 6, 4th Floor, Vanijay Therige Bhavan, Mangaluru – 575 001. …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 order passed by respondent No.2 for the period 2012-13 vide order dated 13.07.2018 produced at Anenxure-G, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 13.07.2018 relating to tax periods, April 2012 to March 2013 as well as demand notice dated 13.07.2018.
3. The petitioner is a partnership firm and registered dealer under the provision of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘the Act’ for short). The Assessing Officer concluded the re-assessment under Section 39(1) of the Act pertaining to the tax periods in question, after issuing the proposition notice. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice. No sufficient opportunity has been provided to the Assessee to putforth his objections to the proposition notice. The rectification application filed by the petitioner has been disposed of reducing the tax liability, but the same is also not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and accordingly, seeks for setting aside the re-assessment as well as the rectification order.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal available under the Act. Ordinarily, the writ petition cannot be entertained in the circumstance when there is an effective mechanism available under the statute for adjudicating the orders of the Assessing Authority.
5. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Act. If such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the Assessing Authority shall consider the same on merits without objecting to the aspect of the limitation, subject to complying with other procedure prescribed under the law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM