2016 (11) TMI 1542 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - KVAT Act 2003 - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. TTP Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Deputy Commissioner of Commericial Taxes (Audit) 2016 (12) TMI 425 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that The narrow parameters for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the appeal remedy available to the petitioner have to be very strictly construed - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal of writ petitions due to availability of alternative remedy under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The High Court, in the judgment, emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, against the impugned reassessment order. Referring to a previous case, the court highlighted that allowing writ petitions directly against assessment orders could consume significant court time unnecessarily. The court stressed the strict construction of the parameters for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when an appeal remedy is available. It was noted that writ jurisdiction should not be lightly invoked based solely on allegations and averments in the writ petitions. The court clarified that only a prima facie assessment of whether the assessee received an opportunity for hearing and if questions of vires were genuinely involved should be considered initially.

The judgment further elaborated that issues raised in the writ petitions could have been addressed before the appellate authorities, and the failure to utilize these remedies could not justify invoking writ jurisdiction at a later stage. The court underscored that challenges to the validity of rules or statutes should be substantial and require interpretation and analysis by constitutional courts, not merely as a tangent ground for maintaining a writ petition. Consequently, the court concluded that the present writ petitions did not merit consideration on their merits and were therefore dismissed. The court did not impose costs on the petitioner-assessee but cautioned that a flood of similar cases might prompt a reconsideration of leniency towards assessees in the future.