2016 (7) TMI 427 - 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: Delay in preferring the appeal, Entertaining writ petition, Challenge to the validity of the rule, Statutory remedy of appeal, Discretion exercised by the learned single Judge, Availability of challenge to the rule under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The judgment addresses various issues, starting with the condonation of a 21-day delay in preferring the appeal due to the similarity with previously disposed matters. The appellant raised concerns about the Assessing Officer finalizing assessment orders despite pending special leave petitions, arguing that the writ petition should have been entertained. The appellant felt remediless regarding the challenge to the rule and contended that the learned single Judge erred in relegating them to the statutory remedy of appeal. However, it was noted that a statutory appeal had been preferred and was pending before the appellate authority under the KVAT Act. The court considered the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in not entertaining the petition and found it not erroneous, except for certain observations regarding the challenge to the rule's validity. The judgment emphasized that the challenge to the rule could be considered in the future, particularly concerning subsequent assessment years, but found no grounds for immediate interference. The court disposed of the appeals with similar observations as in a related writ appeal, concluding that no further interference was warranted.

The judgment also dealt with the issue of the availability of challenge to the rule under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was highlighted that while the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in not entertaining the petition was generally deemed appropriate, certain observations regarding the challenge to the rule's validity were noted. The court emphasized that the challenge to the rule could be considered in the future, specifically in cases related to subsequent assessment years. The judgment concluded that, subject to the observations made in a specific writ appeal, there was no basis for immediate interference, leading to the disposal of all appeals without further action.

Overall, the judgment carefully analyzed the issues surrounding the delay in preferring the appeal, the decision to entertain the writ petition, the challenge to the validity of the rule, the statutory remedy of appeal, the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge, and the availability of challenge to the rule under Article 226 of the Constitution. It provided detailed reasoning for each issue, considering the specific circumstances of the case and previous related matters. The court's decision to dispose of the appeals with certain observations and without immediate interference reflected a thorough assessment of the legal complexities involved.