M/S Pavaman Enterprises vs. State Of Karnataka
Held
The Court held that the impugned order passed under Section 74(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003, is an appealable order under Section 62 of the same Act. Therefore, the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy. The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a regular appeal against the penalty order within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed within this period, the Appellate Authority should not raise any objection regarding the limitation period, provided the petitioner fulfills other conditions for maintaining the appeal. The appeal is to be decided in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Pavaman Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (ACCT), GST, Mysuru, dated November 13, 2017. This order was passed under Section 74(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act, 2003) for the assessment period 2012-13. The petitioner sought to quash this order. The respondents were the State of Karnataka, the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax under Section 74(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003, is amenable to a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, or if a statutory appeal is the appropriate remedy. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order through a writ petition, implying a belief that the writ jurisdiction was applicable or that the statutory remedy was inadequate or unavailable. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue likely contended that a statutory appeal was the proper course of action, as the court directed the petitioner to file an appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 74(4), Section 62
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.52724/2017 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/s. Pavaman Enterprises Shop No.6, Ooty Road APMC Market Yard, Bandipalya Nanjangud Road, Mysore-570025 TIN No.29220026566 Represented by its Proprietor Sri. A. Ramesh.
…Petitioner (By Mr. K. Mallaha Rao, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka Rep. by Finance Secretary Vidhana Soudha Bangalore-560001. 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax Vanijya Terige Bhavan Bangalore-560001. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (LGSTO-195), Sheshadri Bhavan Mysuru-570004. …Respondents (By Mr. Vikram A. Huilgol, HCGP)
Date of Order 22-10-2018 W.P.No.52724/2017 M/s. Pavaman Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka & others
2/3
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order vide Annexure G & H passed by ACCT, GST, Mysuru, Page No.36 & 38 dtd:13-11-2017 &
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.