2017 (4) TMI 1327 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of Entry Tax - sections 5(4), 7(2) and (5) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 - Held that - Once the petitioner has approached the learned Tribunal, once the appeal is sub-judice before the learned Tribunal, it would be highly improper for this court to interfere with the discretion of the Tribunal by passing any order in favour of the petitioner - In case, the petitioner has any grievance with regard to endorsement dated February 20, 2017 and the recovery letter dated April 7, 2017, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the same before the learned Tribunal - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to endorsement and recovery letter by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
2. Assessment order, demand notice, and appeal before Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals-6).
3. Issuance of recovery letter to the bank.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in the matter.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the endorsement and recovery letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, challenging the assessment order and demand notice related to entry tax assessment for the period from April 2009 to March 2010. Despite providing explanations and objections, the tax liability, interest, and penalty were confirmed, leading to the issuance of a demand notice. The petitioner then appealed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals-6) and paid a portion of the liabilities, but the appeal was dismissed, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

2. The High Court observed that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal regarding the matter. The court emphasized that once an appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it would be improper for the High Court to intervene and pass any order favoring the petitioner. The court highlighted the principle that litigants cannot engage in forum shopping to seek relief and stated that the petitioner should address any grievances before the Tribunal instead of bypassing its jurisdiction and approaching the High Court. Consequently, the High Court deemed the writ petition as not maintainable and dismissed it, refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.

3. The High Court's decision was based on the principle of respecting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and preventing litigants from circumventing the proper legal channels for seeking redressal. By emphasizing the importance of following due process and avoiding forum shopping, the court upheld the integrity of the legal system and maintained the authority of the Tribunal in adjudicating the matter. The dismissal of the petition underscored the court's commitment to upholding legal principles and preventing misuse of legal forums for personal interests.

4. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of adhering to established legal procedures and respecting the jurisdiction of specialized tribunals in resolving tax disputes. It underscores the need for litigants to pursue remedies through appropriate legal channels and discourages attempts to bypass the prescribed forums for seeking relief. The High Court's decision reaffirms the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that legal processes are followed diligently to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial system.