9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 368 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of VAT where service tax has been charged - erection of power switchyards - whether movable or not - Maintainability of writ petition - an alternative and efficacious remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was available - The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the property in question cannot be termed as movable property and further on the entire construction, service tax is being charged by the Union Government. Therefore, no sales tax can be charged under KVAT Act for the very transaction in question. - The power-switch yards are made up of power transformers, current transformers, potential transformers, isolators, control and relay panels, circuit breakers, insulators, steel towers etc., and the said goods assembled as switchyards can be installed, re-installed, dis- assembled, re-assembled, re-used and can be shifted from one place to other. Held that - if the learned single Judge is gone by the well settled principles of law for exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of self- imposed restriction and has relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy, it cannot be said that exercise of power is perverse or that any error is committed which may call for interference by this Court in an intra court appeal. Under the circumstances, no case is made out. - Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when there is an alternative statutory remedy available. 2. Determination of taxable liability under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for a transaction involving the construction of power evacuation sub-stations. 3. Whether the property in question should be considered as movable or immovable for the purpose of tax liability. 4. Application of legal precedents and judgments in similar cases to the present situation. 5. Assessment of the appropriateness of relegate the party to an alternative statutory remedy instead of entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Issue 1: The High Court's discretion to entertain a petition under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy exists was examined. The Court noted that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the exercise of power under Article 226 but is a self-imposed restriction. The Court may depart from relegate to an alternative remedy only in exceptional cases where the alternative remedy is illusory or ineffective. Issue 2: The case involved the taxable liability under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act for constructing power evacuation sub-stations. The assessing authority considered the sub-stations as movable goods based on their characteristics and found the consideration received for the transfer of right to use liable to tax under the Act. Issue 3: The contention regarding the nature of the property in question, whether movable or immovable, was crucial for determining the tax liability. The Court highlighted that the nature of goods, movable or immovable, is essential for taxable liability under the Act, and a fact-finding inquiry by the taxing authority is necessary in such cases. Issue 4: Legal precedents and judgments were cited to support the arguments made by the appellant. The Court differentiated the present case from previous decisions where extraordinary circumstances warranted departure from the normal rule of relegate to statutory remedy under Article 226. Issue 5: The Court assessed the facts and circumstances of the case to determine if an extraordinary case was made out to deviate from the self-imposed restriction on exercising power under Article 226. The Court found that no exceptional circumstances were present to justify departing from the normal principles. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the well-settled principles of law guided the decision not to interfere with the single Judge's order. The Court found no perversity in the exercise of power and no error that warranted intervention. The appeal was dismissed without costs, and the interim application was disposed of accordingly.
|
