Statutory appellate remedy governs recovery notices, with limited protection to pursue stay after pre-deposit compliance.

Recovery notices issued under section 45 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, when consequential to a reassessment order, were not entertained on merits because the statute provided an appellate remedy under section 62. Limited protection was considered only to enable prompt pursuit of the appeal and stay application, with directions facilitating same-day consideration of the stay plea upon compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 62(4)(c). The text emphasises that the statutory appeal should ordinarily be pursued first, while interim accommodation may be granted to preserve access to appellate relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notices issued for recovery under section 45 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be entertained on merits when they were consequential to the reassessment order and an appeal was available under the statute. (ii) Whether time-bound protection could be granted to enable the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy and seek stay on compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the notices issued for recovery under section 45 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be entertained on merits when they were consequential to the reassessment order and an appeal was available under the statute.

Analysis: The notices were treated as consequential to the reassessment order. Since the statute provided an appellate remedy under section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the challenge to the recovery notices was not entertained on merits.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notices was declined, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal against the reassessment order.

Issue (ii): Whether time-bound protection could be granted to enable the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy and seek stay on compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The petitioner sought a limited arrangement for deposit so that the appellate authority could consider the stay application on the same day. In view of the amount already received from one third party and the balance required to satisfy the pre-deposit condition under section 62(4)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, directions were issued to facilitate expeditious consideration of the stay plea.

Conclusion: The appellate authority was directed to decide the stay application on the same day as filing, provided the balance amount was deposited or received from the identified third parties.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of by declining interference with the recovery notices on merits while granting limited protection to enable prompt consideration of the anticipated appeal and stay application upon compliance with the prescribed deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recovery notices are consequential to a reassessment order, the statutory appellate remedy must ordinarily be pursued, and limited interim protection may be granted to facilitate consideration of a stay application upon compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

---