TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the Act", for short) and to impose penalty and demand payment of interest. Consequent upon the power conferred by the fourth respondent as above, the first respondent has passed the orders of reassessment and penalty under sections 39(1) and 72(2) of the Act as per annexures B, B1, B2, B3, C, C1, C2, and C3 all dated April 13, 2011. Sri A. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the power conferred by the fourth respondent in favour of the first respondent is invalid and unauthorised. It is argued that the petitioner has filed correct and complete returns, which have been accepted all along by the assessing authority. Therefore, the question of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first respondent issued the proposition notice dated July 16, 2010 under section 39(1) of the Act and passed orders of reassessment and penalty. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had no authority to pass the orders of reassessment because the order at annexure A dated February 24, 2010 issued by the fourth respondent authorising the first respondent to reassess the petitioner is illegal. Therefore, the first question for consideration is whether the order at annexure A passed by the fourth respondent authorising the first respondent to pass the orders of the reassessment is valid? Section 39(1) of the Act states that where the prescribed authority has grounds to believe that an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., C2, and C3 dated April 13, 2011. It is hot in dispute that they are appealable under section 62 of the Act. It is well established that though the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution is extensive, normally the High Court does not exercise that jurisdiction by entertaining petitions against the order of taxing authorities when the statute under which the tax is sought to be levied provides the remedy by way of an appeal thereby by-passing the statutory machinery. The High Court leaves it to the taxpayer to obtain adjudication from the taxing authorities in the first instance. There is no reason why this court should entertain these writ petitions when the Act contains a detailed mechanism for the redressal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or fpr any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under article 226 of the Constitution." It is, also well-settled that the mere fact that an assessee has to deposit the amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e apex court after taking note of the decision in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC) ; AIR 1983 SC 603, has held as under:- " ...That it has become necessary, even now, for us to repeat this admonition is indeed a matter of tragic concern to us. Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to article 226 of th....