2017 (5) TMI 1547 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Time limitation - section 62(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 - Held that - Merely because the right to appeal is subject to depositing part of the tax due it cannot be said that the alternate remedy is an inefficacious one - In catena of cases the honourable Supreme Court has already opined that right to file an appeal is statutory one. Even if the statute imposes certain burden upon the assessee the assessee cannot claim that alternate remedy is not an efficacious one. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 62(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, due to delay.
2. Petitioner's contention regarding alternative remedy under section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act and interpretation of section 62(3) in light of section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dismissing the appeals on grounds of delay under section 62(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner, a construction company, had faced reassessment orders for various assessment periods, leading to a series of legal actions culminating in the filing of appeals before the Joint Commissioner. However, the appeals were dismissed due to being time-barred.

Issue 2: The petitioner argued that the alternative remedy under section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was not efficacious as it required depositing 50% of the tax liability. Additionally, the petitioner sought an interpretation of section 62(3) in light of section 14 of the Limitation Act to deduct the time taken before the wrong forum from the limitation period. The court rejected these contentions, emphasizing that the right to appeal is statutory, and the burden imposed by deposit requirements does not render the remedy inefficacious. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court held that the philosophy of section 14 of the Limitation Act should be considered in condoning delays, obviating the need for a separate declaration on the interpretation of the statutes.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's plea, stating that the petitioner should have pursued the available alternate remedy under section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act instead of directly approaching the court. The court highlighted that the interpretation provided by the apex court is binding, and there was no legal justification for bypassing the prescribed appellate process. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the case, leading to the dismissal of the petition.