2017 (12) TMI 1014 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Garnishee order - temporary interim protection - Held that - this Court is of the opinion that though it was of the petitioner-assessee to file its RSA also before the concerned KAT only and seek even the interim relief from the same Tribunal but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner-assessee is provided a period of one week time to prefer such appeal before the KAT and also seek interim relief from the Tribunal concerned - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petition challenging order under KVAT Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. Validity of garnishee order issued to Bank of America. Petitioner seeking interim protection before approaching KAT.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee, filed a petition against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority under Section 62(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Despite having a statutory remedy before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) under Section 63 of the KVAT Act, the petitioner was concerned about the limitation period of sixty days for filing a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) before the KAT. The Respondent-Department issued a garnishee order to Bank of America, the banker of the petitioner, directing them to remit a specific amount from the Bank Guarantee held for recovery of outstanding demand. The petitioner argued that the Bank Guarantee was valid until 21.02.2019 and that the garnishee order was premature.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted that 30% of the disputed demand had already been paid during the pendency of the first appeal, and the remaining 70% was stayed in accordance with the provisions of Section 62(4) of the KVAT Act. The counsel argued for temporary interim protection for the petitioner before approaching the KAT through RSA under Section 63 of the Act. The petitioner sought relief due to the unique circumstances of the case and the need for time to file the appeal before the KAT.

After hearing both parties, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to file the RSA before the KAT and seek interim relief from the same Tribunal. However, considering the circumstances, the Court granted the petitioner a one-week period to prefer the appeal before the KAT and seek interim protection. During this time, the operation of the impugned order was stayed until 30.11.2017, and the Respondent-Department was prohibited from encashing the Bank Guarantee, if not already done. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed. Additionally, I.A.1/2017 was also disposed of as per the Court's order.