TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011-12 and 2012-13. The petitioner has also sought the prayer that this Court should direct the first respondent to grant exemption to the petitioner from levy of entry tax on the purchase of bitumen and its causing entry into the local area in terms of the Notification dated 30.03.2002 issued by the State Government. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner happens be a dealer registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act,' for short). The petitioner is engaged in the execution of works contract such as laying of roads, and construction of other infrastructure projects. For the purpose of construction of roads, the petitioner requires tar to lay black top roads/bituminous concrete roads, which is avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....010-11, the petitioner purchased bitumen, which is worth Rs. 9,18,65,056/- from M/s. MRPL by paying the applicable VAT. Similarly, the petitioner purchased bitumen worth Rs. 1,78,15,653/- from M/s. BPCL by paying the applicable VAT and entry tax. 6. Similarly, for the year 2011-12 the petitioner purchased bitumen worth Rs. 7,18,76,910/- from the registered dealer M/s. MRPL, and bitumen worth Rs. 3,96,88,953/- from M/s IOCL. Likewise, the petitioner purchased bitumen worth Rs. 34,23,538/- from M/s. BPCL. 7. Even for the year 2012-13, the petitioner purchased bitumen worth Rs. 7,49,75,630/- from M/s. IOCL by paying applicable VAT. According to the petitioner he had utilized the bitumen in the manufacture, and in processing of finished produ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner, the petitioner has no other option, but to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petitions. 12. Heard the learned counsel. 13. The stand being taken by the learned counsel that since the petitioner was advised not to pursue the alternative remedy, therefore it failed to pursue the alternative remedy is clearly untenable and unacceptable. For, ignorance of law is not a valid defence. The petitioner would be well aware of the facts that assessment orders needs to be challenged by filing an appeal under the KTEG Act. In case the petitioner has chosen to not avail the alternative remedy, the choice has been made at its own peril. But, the petitioner cannot be permitted to ignore, and circumven....