Writ jurisdiction barred by adequate appellate remedy; limitation, opportunity, and bias objections failed in tax assessment challenge.

Writ jurisdiction was declined where an effective appellate remedy existed under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The challenge to reassessment and assessment orders was held unsuitable for extraordinary interference because the plea of limitation raised factual issues better examined by the appellate authority. The complaint of inadequate opportunity failed as the assessee had been given a chance to place material, and any further material could also be raised in appeal. The allegation of bias was rejected because the assessing officer's earlier investigation did not, by itself, establish disqualification or bias in tax assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to challenge reassessment and assessment orders under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 despite the availability of an appellate remedy, and whether the pleas of limitation, want of opportunity and bias justified interference.

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was treated as an adequate statutory remedy. The objections regarding limitation involved questions of fact and could be urged before the appellate authority. The complaint of insufficient opportunity was rejected as the assessee had been afforded opportunity to place its material, and any further material could also be pursued in appeal. The allegation of bias was found unsustainable because the mere fact that the assessing officer had earlier conducted investigation did not, by itself, establish disqualification or bias in tax assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction and were dismissed.

---