2015 (8) TMI 394 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of statutory provisions - Availability of alternate remedy - Held that - Admittedly, there are statutory remedies provided under the KVAT Act against an order of assessment such as Ext.P7. Such statutory alternative remedies can be bypassed and orders of assessment can be challenged before this Court only in exceptional cases, such as cases where natural justice is violated or fundamental rights are violated and in cases where the statutory provisions on the basis of which the assessment orders are passed are under challenge. In so far as this case is concerned, we are not satisfied that even if the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is considered at its face value, the case of the appellant will not come without any of the aforesaid circumstances. In such a situation, the learned Judge was eminently justified in taking the view that the remedy available to the appellant is before the statutory authorities. - No ground to interfere with the judgment under challenge - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order and demand notice under Article 226 - Statutory remedies under KVAT Act - Justifiability of writ petition - Violation of natural justice or fundamental rights.

Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court pertains to an appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging an assessment order and demand notice for the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant contended that the Assessing Authority violated statutory provisions by insisting on hard copies of C forms, justifying the writ petition under Article 226 instead of pursuing statutory remedies. The Court observed that statutory remedies under the KVAT Act exist against assessment orders like the one in question. It emphasized that orders of assessment can be challenged before the Court in exceptional cases, such as when natural justice or fundamental rights are violated, or when the statutory provisions forming the basis of assessment are under challenge.

The Court noted that the appellant's case did not fall under any of the exceptional circumstances warranting bypassing the statutory remedies. It held that the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the appropriate remedy for the appellant lay before the statutory authorities. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment under challenge, leading to the failure of the appeal. However, considering the ongoing proceedings, the Court ordered that the dismissal of the appeal would not prejudice the appellant's right to pursue the statutory remedy available. It allowed for the filing of any appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority by a specified date, with instructions to consider the appeal despite any delay.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the importance of adhering to statutory remedies under the KVAT Act unless exceptional circumstances warrant intervention by the Court. The judgment emphasized the need for parties to exhaust statutory avenues before seeking relief through writ petitions, especially in the absence of violations of natural justice, fundamental rights, or challenges to statutory provisions forming the basis of assessment orders.