2016 (7) TMI 425 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Constitutional validity of Rule - Maintainability of writ petition - KVAT - single Judge has declined to enterain the petition on the ground that the assessment orders are appealable before the Appellate Authority under KVAT Act - When a query was raised to the learned senior counsel for the appellant as to whether any appeal under the KVAT Act is preferred after the order of the learned single Judge or not, learned counsel fairly conceded that the statutory appeal has been preferred and the appeal is pending before the appellate authority under KVAT Act. - Held that - As such, if the order of the learned single Judge is accepted by the appellant and appeal is preferred, then there would be hardly any valid ground to entertain the challenge to the order passed in the writ petition out of which these appeals arise. - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against common order of learned single Judge dismissing writ petitions challenging assessment orders under KVAT Act, contention regarding the validity of the rule, remedy sought through separate writ petitions, appeal preferred under KVAT Act, discretion of learned single Judge not to entertain the petition, challenge to the rule under Article 226 of the Constitution, observations on availability of challenge to the rule in future proceedings.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to multiple appeals challenging a common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing writ petitions concerning assessment orders under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act. The appellant contended that despite pending special leave petitions against previous orders, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment for subsequent years. The appellant argued that the writ petition should have been entertained, especially considering the challenge to the validity of the rule in separate proceedings. However, the learned single Judge declined to entertain the petition, directing the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under the KVAT Act.

The senior counsel for the appellant highlighted the appellant's predicament of being rendered remediless regarding the challenge to the validity of the rule. It was argued that the assessment orders were challenged based on the premise that the rule may not apply to the appellant, and thus, the learned single Judge erred in not allowing the writ petition. The appellant was compelled to pursue the statutory appeal under the KVAT Act, which was acknowledged by the counsel.

The judgment further discusses the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in not entertaining the petition and the subsequent appeal preferred under the KVAT Act. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that even if an independent challenge to the validity of the rule was considered under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned single Judge's decision not to entertain the petition was not deemed erroneous. The court emphasized the availability of challenging the rule in future proceedings concerning liability for subsequent assessment years.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of all appeals, stating that no valid ground existed for interference, subject to the observations made in a specific writ appeal. The judgment reiterated the importance of the observations regarding the challenge to the rule in potential future proceedings challenging the appellant's liability for subsequent assessment years.