2009 (10) TMI 859 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court Upholds Tax Scheme, Stresses Jurisdiction Limits

The High Court dismissed the writ appeals challenging the dismissal of writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of allowing the statutory scheme to ... Alternative statutory remedy of appeals under section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that:- We are not inclined to accept the submission of Sri Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant to entertain these appeals and to keep these matters pending and to await further decision of the Supreme Court. If an earlier Division Bench of this court had already applied the law as had been declared by the Supreme Court in K. Raheja Development Corporation's case [2005 (5) TMI 7 - Supreme Court], we can only follow that and dismiss the appeals and Sri Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant also urges us to do so. These writ appeals are dismissed at the threshold without being admitted. Issues:Challenging dismissal of writ petitions on the premise of alternative statutory remedy of appeals under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.Analysis:The writ appeals were filed against the order dismissing writ petitions by a single judge, who stated that the petitioners had the alternative statutory remedy of appeals under section 62 of the Act. The writ petitions contested assessment orders passed by the assessing authority under the Act, alleging misunderstandings and improper taxation by treating immovable property as goods. The petitioners opted for the court's intervention under article 226/227 of the Constitution instead of the appellate remedy under the Act.The appellant argued that the statutory appeal remedy was not efficacious, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in a relevant case. The appellant contended that the law declared by the Supreme Court should be followed, emphasizing a pending writ appeal in another Division Bench. However, the court emphasized the importance of allowing the statutory scheme to operate in taxation matters, intervening only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of power by authorities.The court noted that the law as declared by the Supreme Court in a specific case was binding until the Supreme Court itself opined otherwise. The court declined to entertain the appeals and await the Supreme Court's decision, as the previous Division Bench had already applied the law declared by the Supreme Court. The court also refrained from delving into the merits of the impugned order, directing the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy in accordance with the law.Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ appeals without admission, as the matter had not been examined on its merits by the single judge, who suggested returning the matter to the statutory authorities for availing the statutory remedy. The court emphasized the importance of following established legal principles and declined to entertain the appeals further.Therefore, the writ appeals were dismissed without being admitted, and a related stay application was also dismissed accordingly.