2016 (4) TMI 1325 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of N/N. FD 21 CSL 2014(II) dated February 28 2014 - Discriminatory nature of notification or not? - KVAT Act 2003 - Levy of VAT on Liquor - classification of dealers based on value addition criteria - Held that - Having gone through the detailed judgment of the learned single judge in M. Madhava Gowda v. Under Secretary to Government 2015 (9) TMI 1438 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that The classification of dealers based on value addition criteria for the purpose of tax levy and exempting the dealers based on area criteria cannot be held to be discriminatory - this court is of the opinion that the present writ petitions also deserve to be dismissed for the same reasons - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to Notification No. FD 21 CSL 2014(II) dated February 28, 2014 under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Challenge to Notification: The petitioners challenged Notification No. FD 21 CSL 2014(II) dated February 28, 2014, which exempted tax on liquor sales by certain dealers. The petitioners argued that the notification was discriminatory and unconstitutional, seeking its quashing.

2. Prayers in the Writ Petitions: The petitioners requested the High Court to quash the impugned notification and a subsequent notice issued under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. They sought relief through a writ of certiorari and other appropriate orders as deemed fit.

3. Previous Judicial Decisions: The counsel for the petitioners highlighted a previous judgment by a Single Judge dismissing similar writ petitions challenging the same notification. The counsel also referred to another case where a Single Judge directed the matter to be placed before the appropriate Division Bench.

4. Arguments by Additional Government Advocate: The Additional Government Advocate contended that the writ petitions were premature as the validity of the notification was already under consideration by the Division Bench. He suggested that the petitioners should address factual objections before the assessing authority.

5. Court's Decision: After hearing both parties, the Court agreed with the Additional Government Advocate's submission. The Court noted previous judgments dismissing similar challenges to the notification and found the present writ petitions lacking merit. The Court cited the reasoning from the earlier judgment to support its decision to dismiss the petitions.

6. Dismissal of Writ Petitions: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that they were without merit and discharged the rule. The Court declined the suggestion to place the matter before the Division Bench and allowed the petitioners to file an appeal if desired. The Court emphasized that the present petitions were dismissed in line with the previous judgment.

7. Conclusion: The Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petitions, following the reasoning of the previous judgment and finding the contentions raised by the petitioners to be without merit. No costs were awarded in the matter, and the Court maintained that the petitioners were free to file an appeal in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings and the Court's decision regarding the challenge to the notification under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, providing a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in the judgment.