2019 (4) TMI 234 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of mistakes - mistake apparent on the face of the record - nonspeaking order - principles of natural justice - Held that - It is well-settled law that no writ jurisdiction can ordinarily be exercised where alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act is not exhausted by the assessee - The endeavour made by the learned senior counsel to bring the case within the exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy recognised by the courts has failed. On this ground alone, it can be held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petitions does not merit any consideration and stands dismissed.

Issues:
Assessment under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, rejection of rectification application, legality of impugned order, consideration of grounds raised, validity of rectification application, maintainability of writ petitions, alternative statutory appeal, mistake apparent on record, speaking order requirement.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent under section 69(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, seeking a direction to consider the rectification application. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and sale of pan masala, filed rectification applications for mistakes in assessment orders. The history of litigation includes multiple appeals, orders, and applications challenging the assessment and rectification decisions.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order lacked legal basis and failed to address the grounds raised by the petitioner. The respondent was accused of having a predetermined mind to reject the application without proper consideration. The counsel highlighted arithmetical errors and relevant notifications that were allegedly overlooked in the assessment process.

3. The respondent defended the order, stating that valid reasons were provided for rejecting the rectification application. The respondent argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as there was an alternative statutory appeal available under the Act. The respondent's decision was supported by detailed reasons provided in the impugned order.

4. The court analyzed Section 69 of the Act, emphasizing that rectification is limited to correcting patently glaring mistakes on record. The authority's jurisdiction ends once proceedings are concluded, and rectification cannot be used to re-examine settled issues. The court noted that the respondent's order contained elaborate reasons justifying the decision.

5. The court referred to previous judgments to distinguish cases where orders were set aside due to lack of reasoning. The court found that the impugned order in this case demonstrated the application of mind by the respondent and valid reasons were recorded for the decision.

6. The court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an alternative statutory remedy is available and not exhausted. Quoting relevant passages from previous judgments, the court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures for grievance redressal.

7. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioner could pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law. The court allowed for an appeal to be filed within a specified period, ensuring consideration on merits without objections to the limitation period, subject to legal requirements.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, legal principles applied by the court, and the final decision rendered by the court.

← Previous Next →