9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Added Tax Act, 2003, inter alia, on the ground that the appeals filed by the petitioner are delayed. According to the learned Joint Commissioner, since he does not have the power to condone the delay under section 62 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, and since the appeals were hit by limitation, he has dismissed the appeals. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner, M/s. Wind World (India) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as M/s. Enercon (India) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., is in the business of construction of sub-station/switchyard for power evacuation and has constructed and capitalized power sub-stations in different States of the country. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had the availability of efficacious alternate remedy in filing an appeal. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, it filed different writ appeals before the learned Division Bench. The different writ appeals were dismissed by the learned Division Bench on March 21, 2016, relating to the assessment period 2009-10, by its judgment dated April 21, 2016 relating to the assessment periods 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13, and by its judgment dated August 10, 2016, relating to the assessment period 2008-09. 6. Since this court was of the opinion that the petitioner should actually avail an efficacious alternate remedy for filing the appeal, eventually, the petitioner filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Tribunal. Merely because the right to appeal is subject to depositing part of the tax due, it cannot be said that the alternate remedy is an inefficacious one. In catena of cases, the honourable Supreme Court has already opined that right to file an appeal is statutory one. Even if the statute imposes certain burden upon the assessee, the assessee cannot claim that alternate remedy is not an efficacious one. Secondly, in the case of M. P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 80 VST 402 (SC); [2015] 32 GSTR 260 (SC); [2015] 310 ELT 373 (SC) the honourable Supreme Court has already opined that the philosophy of section 14 of the Limitation Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the power to condonation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
