https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200395 A writ petition challenging an order under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was held not maintainable because an effective statutory appeal under section 63 was available against orders under section 62. The requirement to deposit part of the tax liability for the appeal did not make that remedy inefficacious. The court also noted that the principle reflected in section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had already been recognised by the Supreme Court, so there was no basis for seeking a fresh declaration that section 62(3) must be read in that light. The petitioner was therefore bound to pursue the appellate mechanism and could not bypass it by invoking writ jurisdiction on limitation grounds. en-us Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:32:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200395 A writ petition challenging an order under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was held not maintainable because an effective statutory appeal under section 63 was available against orders under section 62. The requirement to deposit part of the tax liability for the appeal did not make that remedy inefficacious. The court also noted that the principle reflected in section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had already been recognised by the Supreme Court, so there was no basis for seeking a fresh declaration that section 62(3) must be read in that light. The petitioner was therefore bound to pursue the appellate mechanism and could not bypass it by invoking writ jurisdiction on limitation grounds. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200395