Karnataka High Court

Tata Steel Utilities And ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of on 6 January, 2025

Author: Krishna S Dixit

Bench: Krishna S Dixit

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:74-DB
                                                       WA No. 3435 of 2019
                                                   C/W WA No. 3436 of 2019


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                          PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
                                            AND
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                          WRIT APPEAL NO. 3435 OF 2019 (T-RES)
                                         C/W
                          WRIT APPEAL NO. 3436 OF 2019 (T-RES)

                   IN WA No. 3435/2019:

                   BETWEEN:

                   TATA STEEL UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD
                   A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,
                   1956,
                   HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT
                   SACHI BOULEVARD ROAD,
                   NORTHERN TOWER BISTAPUR,
                   JAMSHEDPUR-831 001.

                   AND BRANCH OFFICE AT
Digitally signed   SANITARY LANDFILL SEWAGE FARM,
by SHARADA         OOTY -NANJANGUD ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM,
VANI B             G.S.ASHRAMA POST, MYSURU-570 025.
Location: HIGH     REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
COURT OF           MR.SAURABH SHARMA
KARNATAKA
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SMT. MANEESHA KONGOVI.,ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
                        COMMERCIAL TAXES-ENFORCEMENT-4,
                        OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF
                        COMMERCIAL TAXES, MYSURU ZONE,
                        BIDARAM KRISHNAPPA ROAD,
                        MYSURU-570 001.
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:74-DB
                                    WA No. 3435 of 2019
                                C/W WA No. 3436 of 2019


2.   COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
     VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA-1,
     1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560 009.

3.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,
     VIDHANA SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU-560 001.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT., AGA FOR R1-3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 18/07/2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.26628-
26639/2018 [T-RES], AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEARING WP
NOS.26628-26639/2018 [T-RES] IN ITS ENTIRETY.

IN WA NO. 3436/2019:

BETWEEN:

 TATA STEEL UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
 LTD,
 A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,
 1956,
 HAVING CORPORATE OFFICE AT
 SACHI BOULEVARD ROAD,
 NORTHERN TOWER BISTAPUR,
 JAMSHEDPUR-831 001.

 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT
 SANITARY LANDFILL SEWAGE FORM,
 OOTY-NANJANGUD ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM,
 G.S.ASHRAMA POST, MYSURU-570 025.
 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
 MR.SAURABH SHARMA
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. MANEESHA KONGOVI.,ADVOCATE)
                              -3-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:74-DB
                                       WA No. 3435 of 2019
                                   C/W WA No. 3436 of 2019




AND:

1.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
     COMMERCIAL TAXES-ENFORCEMENT-4,
     OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF
     COMMERCIAL TAXES, MYSURU ZONE,
     BIDARAM KRISHNAPPA ROAD,
     MYSURU-570 001.

2.   COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
     VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA-1,
     1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560 009.

3.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
     BY ITS SECRETARY,
     VIDHANA SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU-560 001.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT., AGA FOR R1-R3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION    OF   INDIA   PRAYING   TO    SET   ASIDE   THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 18/07/2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.26640-
22651/2018 (T-RES), AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEARING WRIT
PETITION NOS.26640-22651/2018 (T-RES) IN ITS ENTIRETY.


       THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
                              -4-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:74-DB
                                       WA No. 3435 of 2019
                                   C/W WA No. 3436 of 2019


           and
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

In W.A.No.3435/2019:

This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against a learned

Single Judge's common order dated 18.7.2019 in

appellant's W.P.Nos.26640-22651/2018 C/w

W.P.Nos.26628-26639/2018 (T-RES) whereby challenge to

the Assessment Order in question having been kept open,

appellant is relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

Assessee vehemently submits that the rule of alternate

remedy in writ jurisdiction is only a judicial invention in

the country, and that cannot be operated as a Thumb Rule

regardless of facts ascertainable from record; if such facts

give rise to a right of remedy to the litigant, he cannot be

sent back empty handed. She points out that in some

Assessment Orders, the transaction of the kind has been

treated as a 'composite transaction' whereas in the

NC: 2025:KHC:74-DB

subject Assessment Orders, it is unjustifiably treated

otherwise; this aspect having not been properly adverted

to by the learned Single Judge, indulgence in appeal is

warranted. Lastly, learned counsel argues that the

statutory appeal is no efficacious remedy inasmuch as the

Assessee has to make pre-deposit of money.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the respondent-

Revenue opposes the appeal with equal vehemence

contending that in taxation matters like this, ordinarily the

Assessee should not be permitted to invoke the

constitutional jurisdiction of this court, when appellate

remedy avails at large u/s.62 of the Karnataka Value

Added Tax Act, 2003. He also submits that the

requirement of making predeposit for maintaining the

statutory appeal is no ground for bypassing it and thereby

invoking writ jurisdiction. Lastly he adds that, even

otherwise there are no extraordinary circumstances

warranting interference of this court.

NC: 2025:KHC:74-DB

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and having perused the Appeal Papers, we are

inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter to the

effect that appellant can prefer a statutory appeal against

the orders that were impugned in the writ petitions subject

to he making pre-deposit of 30% of disputed tax along

with interest accruing due thereon till the filing of writ

petitions i.e., 30.08.2019, within four weeks.

5. Learned AGA is right in telling us that the legal

requirement of making pre-deposit of certain monies as a

sine qua non is a matter of statutory policy under which

right of appeal is created i.e, Sec.62 of 2003 Act and that

such a right being a creature of law, the creator of right

can condition it subject to fulfillment of which the said

right becomes exercisable. However, several exceptions

to this broad proposition galore, cannot be much disputed.

Appellant's case arguably fits into one of them.

In the above circumstances, this appeal is disposed off permitting the appellant to avail the remedy of statutory appeal under section 62 of the 2003 Act subject

NC: 2025:KHC:74-DB

to depositing 30% of the amount due in terms of the impugned Assessment Orders; the interest accruing due on such amount only till 30.08.2019 shall also be reckoned while computing this.

If appeal is filed within a period of four weeks along with pre-deposit as mentioned above, the issue of delay would not crop up. All contentions of the parties are kept open. We make it clear that we have not laid down any law in this judgment that is rendered fact-specific.

Registry to return the impugned Assessment Orders after retaining photostat copies thereof in record of the cases.

IN W.A.No.3436/2019:

The subject matter of this appeal is substantially

similar to the one in W.A.No.3435/2019 wherein reprieve

has been accorded to the appellant-assessee. A Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974

between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA, disposed off on 11.12.1974 has observed

that the Court should treat like cases alike and if relief is

granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to

other similarly circumstanced litigants, there being no

NC: 2025:KHC:74-DB

derogatory circumstances. This applies in all fours to the

case of this appellant.

In the above circumstances, this appeal is also

disposed off granting the same relief to the appellant as

has been accorded in the companion case i.e.,

W.A.No.3435/2019.