2009 (10) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... premise that the writ petitioners had the alternative statutory remedy of appeals under section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short "the Act") and therefore reserving liberty to the petitioners, the petitions were dismissed enabling the petitioners to file appeals seeking statutory remedies. The writ petitions themselves were directed against a good number of assessment orders (annexure D series) passed by the assessing authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 determining the tax liability of the writ petitioners for the various periods mentioned in the orders by passing such orders in terms of the provisions of section 39(1) of the Act.   The writ petitioners were aggrieved ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant, Sri R. V. Prasad, the learned counsel would vehemently urge that the learned single judge is very wrong in dismissing the writ petitions and directing the petitioners to avail of the alternative statutory remedy; that the learned single judge failed to notice the alternative remedy of appeal though provided under the Act was neither an efficacious remedy nor of any use for the present appellants; that the authorities functioning under the Act had no choice but to apply a law that had been declared in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka reported in [2005] 141 STC 298 (SC), that the principles of law as had been opined by the Supreme Court in this case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 should be allowed to operate. An interference in this course of scheme under the writ jurisdiction may be possible, if at all in a situation where an authority purporting to exercise functions under the Act assumes jurisdiction not under the Act or while exercising powers and functions under the Act and as statutory authorities grossly misuses or abuses the power or even victimizes a given assessee or dealer due to irrelevant considerations. Otherwise, this court even while exercising writ jurisdiction will not normally examine the correctness or otherwise of all the orders passed by the authorities but would relegate all such wrongs, mistakes or erroneous orders to be corrected in the manner ....