Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 843 (KAR)

MITSUBHISHI CORPORATION v. STATE OF KARNATAKA.

2010-07-27

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2010
ORDER ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J. - Sri K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader, is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner has made the following prayers : (A) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent not to proceed as per notice dated July 5, 2010 in No. DCCT (Audit - 52) DVO-5/10-11 produced at annexure E till the final disposal of the appeal in S.T.A. Nos. 1393 and 1394 of 2008 pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. (B) Any other order or direction may be issued in the interest of justice and equity. Sri B. G. Chidananda Urs, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ("the KAT", for short) is seized of the matter for the earlier assessment period. As the nature of the impugned proposition notice and of the subject raised before the KAT are akin, it is desirable that respondent No. 2 defer the consideration of the proposition notice. He also brings to my notice the provisions contained in section 40(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the VAT Act", for short) to buttress his submission that five years' time is granted for concluding the assessment/reassessment after the end of the prescribed tax period. In the instant case, the notice is for the year 2007-08. Sri K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned Government Pleader, submits that the petitioner has already filed the objections to the proposition notice. On its insistence for filing further objections to the proposition notice, time was granted till today. He submits that on considering the petitioner's objection/reply, if the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passes any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner can avail of the appeal remedy provided under section 62 of the VAT Act. On hearing the learned advocates, this court finds that these petitions are premature, as no firm cause of action has arisen to the petitioner. In the fitness of the case, the petitioner has to await the outcome of the proposition notice having filed its objection thereto. Just because a similar matter is pending before the KAT, the Deputy Commissioner cannot be directed to defer the consideration of the proposition notice. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned proposition notice is barred by delay or without jurisdiction. Just because a similar matter is pending before the KAT, the Deputy Commissioner cannot be directed to defer the consideration of the proposition notice. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned proposition notice is barred by delay or without jurisdiction. I am afraid the prayer made is not grantable. The petitioner cannot mandamuses the prohibitory/injunctive relief. In the result, these petitions are rejected expressing no opinion whatsoever on the petitioner's tax liability. No order as to costs.