TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vedamurthy, learned HCGP for respondent, who has been put on advance notice. 3. Petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( for short 'KVAT Act") and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ( for short 'CST Act') and is questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act. 4. Grievance of the petitioner in these writ petitions is that for the tax period April 2013 to March, 2014 petitioner had claimed concessional rate of tax or exemption, as the case may be on inter-State sales of goods effected by it on the basis that it would collect and file statutory forms in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of impugned order and this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can set aside an order which is in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Bangalore Turf Club Limited vs. Union of India and Ors. passed in W.P.Nos.6565-6568/2013 and 6651-6652/2013 c/w 18696-18697/2013 & 6674/2013, dated 26.09.2014. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP would support the impugned order and would contend that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of petitioner not having availed alternate remedy of appeal available under the Act and as such prays for dismissal of these petitions. 7. Having heard the learned Advo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o pass the impugned order. Thus, it would indicate that petitioner was afforded all opportunity to file its reply. There is no violation of principles of natural just ice. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ORS. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 while examining the maintainability of writ petition against a show cause notice, has held that availability of alternate remedy would not operate as a bar to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction atleast in three contingencies namely, where petitioner seeks to enforce fundamental rights; or where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or where action of respondent or authorities being without jurisdiction or vires of an Act, is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... constitutional law as they still hold the field." 11. In the case of STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS vs. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. & ANOTHER - STC VOL 142, 2005 [(2005) 6 SCC 499] , Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "17. Stand of the respondents on the other issues was to the effect that the submissions of the appellants do not carry any weight and have been made overlooking the factual and legal position. The submissions completely overlook the essence of the notifications and are based on misreading them. 18. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant-State. Except for a period when article 226 was amended by the Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. 20. Another Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. V. Bhailal Bhai etc. etc., AIR (1964) SC 1006, held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. The power to give relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary power. Similar view has been reiterated xxx in [2003] 1 SCC 72. 21. In Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107, this Court held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application/request letter dated 03.02.2015 (Annexure-E) which would clearly indicate that petitioner had notice of the proceedings. In that view of the matter, it cannot be construed that no opportunity was extended to petitioner or there has been violation of principles of natural justice. Endorsement dated 04.02.2015 ( Annexure-F), would clearly indicate that opportunity of hearing had been extended to the petitioner and petitioner did not appear before the respondent - authority. In that view of the matter, contention raised with regard to there being violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 13. For the reasons aforestated, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed by reserving liberty to ....