TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked after the assessee had availed and exhausted the statutory remedies under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, and (ii) whether the reassessment order was jurisdiction or vitiated by violation of natural justice so as to justify interference under Article 226.
Issue (i): Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked after the assessee had availed and exhausted the statutory remedies under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
Analysis: The available statutory scheme provided an appeal, condonation of delay, second appeal and revision. The Court held that once the statutory remedies were exhausted, writ jurisdiction would not ordinarily be exercised unless the taxing provision was declared ultra vires, the authority lacked jurisdiction, or there was a manifest error. The fact that the appellate or revisional orders did not decide the dispute on merits did not by itself make the assessment order amenable to writ interference.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment order was without jurisdiction or vitiated by violation of natural justice so as to justify interference under Article 226.
Analysis: The Court held that the expression "assessment" was wide enough to include "reassessment", and therefore the reassessment proceedings were not without authority merely because the intelligence report was acted upon. Questions relating to whether the purchases were export purchases or local purchases were treated as questions of fact. The Court also found no denial of natural justice, as objections had been filed and the record did not support the plea that the assessee was denied an effective opportunity. The challenge to the transfer and extension orders was also not pursued in the petition.
Conclusion: The reassessment was not shown to be without jurisdiction or vitiated by breach of natural justice, and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The Court refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction because the statutory remedies had been exhausted and no case of ultra vires action, lack of jurisdiction, or manifest error was established.
Ratio Decidendi: After exhaustion of the statutory hierarchy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not be exercised in tax matters unless the levy or order is shown to be ultra vires, wholly without jurisdiction, or vitiated by a manifest error; reassessment falls within the concept of assessment and factual disputes are not ordinarily examinable in writ proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
