https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200395 The court dismissed the petitioner's plea challenging the dismissal of appeals by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 62(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, due to delay. The court held that the petitioner should have pursued the alternative remedy under section 63 of the Act instead of directly approaching the court. It emphasized that the burden imposed by deposit requirements does not render the remedy inefficacious and that the interpretation of statutes should consider the philosophy of condoning delays under section 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition. 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 The court dismissed the petitioner's plea challenging the dismissal of appeals by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 62(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, due to delay. The court held that the petitioner should have pursued the alternative remedy under section 63 of the Act instead of directly approaching the court. It emphasized that the burden imposed by deposit requirements does not render the remedy inefficacious and that the interpretation of statutes should consider the philosophy of condoning delays under section 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200395