TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Mr. R.L.Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. N.Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. T.K.Veda Murthy, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for respondents. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that earlier the very appellant had app roached the Apex Court by preferring Writ Petition (Civil) No.963/2014 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the Apex Court vide order dated 24/11/2014, permitted withdrawal of the said petition with leave to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the appellant/original petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.4363/2015 before the learned single Judge of this Court, challenging the validity of the Rule, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an admitted fact that the appellant has failed in the litigation of STA.Nos.120/2012 and 1-1 0/2013 before the Division Bench of this Court and taxation liability is confirmed as per the decision of the Additional Commissioner. It is also true that the appellant has carried the matter before the Apex Court in Special L eave Petition (Civil) and the matter is pending before the Apex Court, but the relevant aspect is that no interim stay has been granted by the Apex Court. The matter can further be examined in two facets: one, pertaining to the liability which has already been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in STA.Nos.120/2012 and 1-10/2013 and the other, is in respect of taxation liability for the subsequent assessment years. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the decision of the Tribunal, the decision can be challenged before this Court in the revisional jurisdiction under the KVAT Act, but the said stage has not arrived as yet. 9. It is hardly required to be stated that when the writ powers are invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may be, for challenging the validity of the statutory rule, this Court in normal circumstance by way of self-imposed restriction would relegate the part y to the statutory, alternative remedy. The appellant/original petitioner had the option of challenging the validity of the rule when the appeals were preferred in respect of earlier assessment order before this Court in STA.Nos.120/2012 and 1-10/2013, but the appellant did not challenge the va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earlier assessments are considered and the decision of this Court in STA.Nos.120/2012 and 1-10/201 3 are kept in mind, even otherwise also, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for upsetting the order passed in the appellate jurisdiction of this court cannot be entertained. 11. However, the same may not be position so far as the subsequent assessment years are concerned, because in respect of subsequent assessment years as recorded herein above, the appeals are pending before the statutory appellate authority under the KVAT Act. If ultimately, the question arises regarding a challenge to the liability, which is finalized by the statutory authority before this court in the appellate jurisdiction, the appellant may also ....