Statutory appellate remedy preferred over writ review, with interim protection from tax recovery pending tribunal decision.

Challenge to the amended entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the resulting reassessment on household insecticides was not entertained on merits because the dispute involved mixed questions of fact and law better examined by the statutory appellate forum. The writ court held that the Appellate Tribunal was the appropriate remedy, while granting interim protection against coercive recovery of the balance tax until the Tribunal decided the matter. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the appeal within three months.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained on merits or the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate tribunal, and whether interim protection against recovery was warranted pending such recourse.

Analysis: The challenge concerned the amendment to entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the reassessment made at the higher rate on household insecticides. The Court noted the petitioner's apprehension that an appeal would be futile in view of the Commissioner's clarification and considered that the controversy involved questions of fact and law requiring adjudication by the appellate forum. In the circumstances, the statutory remedy before the Appellate Tribunal was treated as the appropriate course, with protection granted against coercive recovery of the balance tax until the Tribunal decided the matter.

Outcome: The petitions were disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the Appellate Tribunal, with a direction to decide the matter within three months and with protection against recovery of the balance tax till such decision.

---