Valid reassessment authorisation and availability of statutory appeal justify refusal of writ interference in a belated challenge.

Reassessment jurisdiction under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was sustained because the record contained a Commissioner's assignment order specifically authorising assessment and reassessment for the relevant dealer and tax period. The challenge based on absence of authorisation therefore failed. The writ petition was also declined because the reassessment order had been challenged belatedly and the petitioner had an available statutory appellate remedy after pursuing recovery proceedings. The petitioner was relegated to the appeal forum, with protection to file the appeal within the time granted and have it considered on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reassessment order lacked jurisdiction for want of authorization by the Commissioner under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003; and (ii) whether the writ petition should be declined on the ground of delay and relegation to the appellate remedy.

Issue (i): whether the reassessment order lacked jurisdiction for want of authorization by the Commissioner under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The record showed that the Commissioner had issued an assignment order authorizing assessment and reassessment for the relevant tax period. The authorization specifically covered the petitioner and the tax period in question, and the earlier decisions relied on were distinguished because they involved cases where no such assignment note or specific authorization was produced.

Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction failed and the reassessment was not vitiated on the ground of absence of authorization.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition should be declined on the ground of delay and relegation to the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The reassessment order was of an earlier date, the petitioner had already been contesting the matter in recovery proceedings, and the writ remedy was invoked only at a later stage. In these circumstances, the Court held that the appropriate course was to relegate the petitioner to the statutory appeal, while protecting the filing of an appeal within a short time and permitting consideration on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to avail the alternative appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment did not succeed in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal without prejudice to the merits of the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is supported by a valid assignment order and an effective statutory appeal is available, the writ court may decline interference and relegate the assessee to the alternate remedy, especially when the challenge is raised belatedly.

---