TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessment order challenge dismissed by Karnataka HC, emphasizes use of appellate remedies</h1> The Karnataka HC dismissed the writ petition filed by an assessee challenging an assessment order and consequential demand under the Karnataka Value Added ... Whether the product which is manufactured and sold by the assessee is one which is covered under a stipulated entry in the Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which are all taxable at four per cent as per Notification No. FD 197 CSL 2005(6) dated April 30, 2005 and if not covered by this notification it taxable at 12.5 per cent? Held that:- Just because the assessee feels it has a very good case on the merits, that by itself is not a justification for this court to entertain a writ petition by-passing the appellate remedies. If that were to be so, then all merited matters should be examined under articles 226 and 227 and not by way of appeals and can lead to unnecessary burdening of the High Court. Thus do not find this is a proper case to entertain the petition under the discretionary writ jurisdiction and to permit the petitioner to by-pass the appeal remedies available under the Act. Appeal dismissed. The Karnataka High Court issued an order regarding a writ petition filed by an assessee under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner contested an assessment order and consequential demand from the assessing authority. The petitioner claimed the assessing officer did not independently apply, but rather followed the orders of a higher official. The dispute arose from the classification of a product under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The assessing officer determined the tax liability at 12.5% instead of 4% as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the appellate remedy available was not efficacious due to the involvement of the Commissioner. The court noted that disputed questions of fact and law should be examined by the authorities under the Act and not by the writ court. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner should pursue the available appellate remedies and address any delays in presenting the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of following normal remedies provided under the Act in tax matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
