High Court Karnataka High Court

Apm Cashew Industries vs The Assistant Commissioner Of … on 16 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Apm Cashew Industries vs The Assistant Commissioner Of … on 16 December, 2009
Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH. COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN1s;%'t:;Fg$i';ORF

DATED Tms THE 16"' DAY OF DFcEM;3F.R, 2059A "  I'  

BEFORE;
THE HONBLF MR. ]USTIC'.E§""H_7N. 
W.R.No.37214-15/2009 8:.F37'.'?.'.(}§0-3317.11/2OG9(T:RES)

BETVVEEN:
APM cAsF1Ew~'1Nm3s1'RF.Fs:   
PROPRIETQR 4vV.i?,QG1sF1;MA.LL¥A  V .
AGED ABOUT r$(§YEARS'  " '  
BUKOK]C--U{lD{_)§i*VF_ " _ _  
POST: aPERD_OC§R. 1575 12.4 '  .  _ _
"FALUK*-& EDIST. U1">.IIj'R_1%.  _   __

C '   *  " " ..P:F:'_1'1'r:1ONF,.R

(By gri;'1:\:1>RARLI:1g}:;z:R, S R.COUNSEL FOR

 *  _ -{SR1 {£.J'.SAANMATH~I;~~ADV.)

1 .' (F1-IE  COMMISSIONER. OF
COMMERCITA1, TAXES

-« ._   ;LVOué8Q_ "
' V. UT)U.1?1.

  '  THE {DEPUTY COMMISSEONER OF
' "  -COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT

U.R.RAO COMPLEX,

ow



ADMARMiA".I.'T LANE,
U1) UPI.

3. TH E CQI£\/i.M.ISSIONER OF COM.'MI.'§RC',{A_L
TAXEIS, KARNATAKA, {ST FLOOR",
CfOMME.RCIAL TAXEIS BUILDENCJS,
GANIDHINAGAR,

BANGALORE560 009.

4. STATE 012 KARNATAKA,
BY yrs SE(IRE"E'ARY 
DEPAR']'M}'§NT OF FINANCE.. Z V V
GOVERNMENT OF KARNA'.{'A'KA   
VIDHANA SOUDHA,  V
I%ANGALO;REw56U.QO1 _ '

=:     V. _ .R]E:',SPONDEN"}f'S
(By SR1 K.M.sH;vA§{o<;1swémrz, _:AD\/fi)

Tilflf".-€;3'  under Articies 226 8:. 227 of the
COI1S{itLiLi01T~ oi"  to quash the impugned rew
BSSESSITIEIIET".Q%d.e1'S{.p3£'.$éd.z_.'..2"'b}' the second resp011dent dated
23.7.2230? and em.' ~  '

'1"sE1,Aese petitiens coming 02: for preliminary hearing this day,

 _ ['§'1f;?_CDJ.,1'f{._1;11¢H§(2_tiiiig? fofiowing;

QR Dli'1€

'E11__t11ese writ petitions the petitétmer has prayed for a writ

W.it1*»the nature of certiorari to quash the arder of re--assessmer1t

""d£%'[E'£§ 23.7.2009 passed by the sectmci respondent as per

d*\.»v’

,-=I1’£c1’c/:3 2215 cipfrfrc? C.I’c:2n:;I11’z1I1’0n. ,-111′ z’]:n:~* sgzzzic?
£”a171’1Uz’ hr,-= /cm’ .v1g]1[ of”;/Jar Ihozzgfi the V
to an £}]Z’t:’I1?1£I[f1»–‘6’ re122c”‘c1fy Z235 rnjtliilrzgé ‘to
jz.z1’1Ls”d1’cr1’01:2 of the case, i2o1132¢;iif7g’
should not zmerfiez-‘e 1}”r]2er¢é”‘;i;”V:VV:ki.r2
a2f[ce1’12;2zc13/e 1’emeaf;/; ‘.i2_;V’,;fr:V:ii*:3_:9.c,”]2z:*.s* vrjzieviffzggvfi
Court’. W1?/1Q._r.1r ca’iv/fa;!z’I1fJ:’1g.V re122edy”
p1’cn/1’d<;=c/_V I/zen? be /1525
112;gd6?_,;fL¢1'f :71: if exzlcr good grozxmgis

ID :j':2«s.'-E; j'u1'1I9ci1ct1bn.

3. [.2 €i.1_1d.no~ str{T:_11:g.g~f()u11c1s or exceptional or compelling

C’1Iv.¢L’:1’I’I7%.§3tc§IlTiC’_€S fc)rV’e:;——–rcise of power under Article 226 of the

C{),_11uSEAI’I;v¥.V;I’T…’iV(:)i”..V’VafiE”1f:€3l'(ifi)I”€, the wrii petitions are hereby rejecied

re.’-a_r\riijg*liéierty in {he petit.iom’:r to wcrkoizt their remecly by

\

‘ f§.1i1’1g £1V§L’fi'[3f{)§JI’.%.{d[€’ appeal} in accordance with iaw. I11-the event of

“vpéaéiiiinzier filing an appeai. within two weeks from {{)d££1§/ then {he

d*’~~*

‘J:

..A;gpe11ate+ .:’XL1{11(“>riI;y shall consider {be same in accord;-:1j1C-:g’v;{_ith

law ami without reference {O the question of 1i1f_1″-.’i:IV:-1t:’:c”>i;.[ —-._It”-is’ ~

furzher directed that the Appellaie A11tho.rity s’i1a11V4’d’i:;p:1éxe

appeal as ex.pedit.ious1y as possible. C)rtil«<-greéd £1CCL3I'&i~%]g'1jr'. 2

DKB