M/S Aishwarya Fort vs The State of Karnataka and Others

H.G. Ramesh, J.—Heard In these writ petitions, the petitioner is challenging the reassessment order dated 20th January 2012 which is produced as Annexure-A. It is not in dispute that this order is appealable u/s 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India:

17 ....Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of tine Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

In view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to above, I deem it appropriate to dismiss these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with law.