Statutory appeal and saving provisions control a KVAT reassessment challenge for a pre-GST assessment period.

A writ challenge to a KVAT re-assessment order for 2012-13 was found not maintainable where a statutory appeal was available under the KVAT Act, so the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy. The taxable event was the individual sale or purchase transaction, and the law in force on the date of that event governed the levy. On that basis, the Karnataka GST Act, 2017, Article 246-A and the 101st Constitutional Amendment had no bearing on the assessment period. Section 174 of the KGST Act was treated as a saving provision preserving liabilities and orders under the repealed KVAT regime, making the broader constitutional challenge academic on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging a re-assessment order under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was maintainable despite an available statutory appeal, and whether the later GST regime and constitutional amendments had any bearing on a tax period relating to 2012-13.

Analysis: The impugned re-assessment order was passed under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the assessment year 2012-13, and a statutory appeal lay under Section 62 of that Act. The Court held that the taxable event is the individual sale or purchase transaction, and the law in force on the date of the taxable event governs the levy. Since the relevant period was 2012-13, the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Article 246-A of the Constitution of India, and the 101st Constitutional Amendment had no application to the impugned assessment. The Court further noted that Section 174 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is a saving provision preserving liabilities and orders under repealed enactments, including the KVAT Act, and therefore the constitutional challenge did not affect the validity of the assessment order. The broader constitutional questions were treated as academic in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal under the KVAT Act.

---