2010 (7) TMI 889 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to defer proceedings based on a notice.
2. Consideration of objections to the proposition notice.
3. Prematurity of the petitions filed.
4. Jurisdiction to defer the consideration of the proposition notice.
5. Granting of mandamus for prohibitory/injunctive relief.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the second respondent from proceeding based on a notice until the final disposal of pending appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The counsel for the petitioner argued that since the matter before the Tribunal and the subject of the notice are similar, it is advisable for the second respondent to postpone the consideration of the notice. Reference was made to section 40(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which allows five years for assessment/reassessment after the tax period ends. The notice in question pertained to the year 2007-08. The Government Pleader mentioned that the petitioner had already submitted objections to the notice, and further time was granted for additional objections. The court noted that the petitions were premature as no firm cause of action had arisen, and the petitioner should await the outcome of the notice after filing objections.

The court emphasized that the Deputy Commissioner cannot be compelled to delay the consideration of the notice simply because a similar matter is pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. It was clarified that unless the notice was delayed or lacked jurisdiction, the petitioner's prayer for mandamus was not feasible. The court concluded by rejecting the petitions without expressing any opinion on the petitioner's tax liability and decided not to award costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and waiting for the outcome of objections before seeking extraordinary relief like mandamus for prohibitory or injunctive purposes.