Court dismisses writ petitions challenging Assessment Orders & entry tax exemption on bitumen, emphasizes adherence to legal procedures.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging Assessment Orders for multiple years and seeking exemption from entry tax on bitumen. Despite the petitioner's failure to pursue the alternative remedy under the KTEG Act within the prescribed period, the court refused to entertain the petitions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and exhausting available remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The judgment underscores the significance of following statutory processes and the consequences of failing to avail alternative remedies provided by law.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Orders for multiple years, Claim for exemption from entry tax on bitumen, Failure to pursue alternative remedy under KTEG Act, Invocation of writ jurisdiction by petitioner.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Assessment Orders: The petitioner, a dealer registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, challenged the Assessment Orders for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The petitioner specifically contested the levy of entry tax on the purchase of bitumen, seeking exemption based on notifications issued by the State Government regarding the entry tax.

2. Exemption from Entry Tax: The petitioner argued that the notifications exempted goods used as raw materials in the manufacture of intermediate or finished products from entry tax. The petitioner purchased bitumen from various suppliers and utilized it in the manufacturing process, believing it qualified for exemption. However, the tax authorities demanded a significant amount as tax and interest, leading to the dispute.

3. Failure to Pursue Alternative Remedy: The court noted that the petitioner failed to file appeals against the Assessment Orders within the stipulated period under the KTEG Act. The petitioner claimed it was advised against pursuing the alternative remedy, but the court held that ignorance of the law was not a valid defense. The court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to avail the alternative remedy was at its own risk, and it could not bypass the statutory process.

4. Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction: Despite the petitioner's argument that the delay in pursuing the alternative remedy prevented them from doing so, the court dismissed the writ petitions. The court highlighted that allowing litigants to ignore statutory remedies and directly approach the court after the limitation period would encourage circumvention of the law. The court refused to entertain the petitions, stating that it could not condone the petitioner's failure to follow the prescribed legal procedures.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and exhausting available remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The judgment underscores the significance of following statutory processes and the consequences of failing to pursue alternative remedies provided by law.

---