M/S M K TRADERS V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX

WA/1752/2019

AI Insights

The case involves M/S M.K. Traders, the appellant, challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) dated 31st January 2019. The appellant initially filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 25th April 2019, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The appellant contested the dismissal, arguing that the non-provision of incriminating documents hindered their ability to appeal effectively. The High Court, however, found that the appellate remedy was sufficient and efficacious, despite the compulsory deposit requirement.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 741537 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM HUILGOL
• Assessee Lawyers: VEENA KAMATH
• Keywords: Appellate Tribunal; Compulsory deposit; Efficacious Remedy; Karnataka Value Added Tax Act; Writ Appeal
• Section: 63; 4

Judgement Text

" - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.1752 OF 2019 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S M.K. TRADERS 4TH CROSS, MYSORE TRADERS COMPOUND APMC YARD, TIPTUR REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. VEENA J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR KAMATH & KAMATH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX (APPEALS-6), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX (AUDIT)-6.2, DVO-6 KIADB BUILDING PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIAL AREA IV PHASE, BENGALURU 58 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) --- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN - 2 - WP NO.11388/2019 [T-RES]; VIDE ORDER DATED 25/04/2019 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.11388/2019 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The substantive challenge by the appellant before the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was to an order dated 31st January 2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). It is an admitted position that against the said order, an appeal under Section 63 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘the said Act’) is maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 63 of the said Act was available and the appellant cannot circumvent the provisions of law by directly invoking writ jurisdiction. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the incriminating documents were not ordered to be provided to the appellant notwithstanding the specific - 3 - submission made before the Joint Commissioner. Her submission is that out of four incriminating documents, for the first time, two documents were made available during the pendency of the writ petition. Inviting our attention to sub- section (4) of Section 63 of the said Act, she would submit that if the appeal is to be preferred before the Appellate Authority, requisite amount will have to be deposited. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL1. 4. We have carefully considered her submissions. Merely because there is a provision for compulsory deposit of certain amount as a condition for entertaining the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, a remedy by way of an appeal does not cease to be an efficacious remedy. The validity of similar provisions requiring compulsory deposit of certain amount as a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts. The arguments which are canvassed regarding non furnishing of the documents can be always agitated by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal. 1 AIR 1955 SC 65 - 4 - Therefore, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that an efficacious remedy of preferring the appeal was available to the appellant. Hence, we decline to entertain this appeal and the same is dismissed. The period of four weeks provided under the impugned order is extended by a further period of four weeks from today. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB "