High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S. Sri Amaravathi Traders vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S. Sri Amaravathi Traders vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2009
Author: Manjula Chellur B.V.Nagarathna
mm was 3:93 coca? or KARKATAKA, EAKGALORE
DAEEI rams $33 22"'nAx 9? APRIL, 2oo9Hf V 
pmsmw J  4'
was KON'BLE Mas. &USTICE MAKJULA.¢fifiiLUSkfl 

AND

$33 fiGN'BLE MRS. JUSTICE $,v;_hAsARA&HaA 7f< "

W1A.998!2UQ§vjmAfi§._’. ”

sgrwsgx u ‘

Mxs. sax AmAaAvA$H1.wRfi9ERs;f,’»_
§o.:?a, MfiLA§fiLLI R§M§”RAosaoA§,_;
aAxaALoRE.= ;””~f’ “,1_ pa’?
rznnusa ME wane; xumaaa “j<,_V
saga; agzxgég pRo?§:EwE:x, '"

Léws gm? M i§;:iHaMMA –W' APPELLANT
{By MfS : KAMA£K*§ukAM§E3;

AEE – L

1X TEE smamm or KAREAEAKA
«_ ‘wnkcvaa wan smcnmmany
;.”»nE2A2$MEHw 0? FINANCE,

-2 v£n3aHAjssUnHA,aANaALoRn

2 “3gE_§2’caM1ssxo§ma 0? CQMERCIAL
» 23333 (?RANSITIGN}~23,
*V<_Isw FLQQR, AsHA$A cammzxxg

"V_ "sang czgaaaxcs BOARD,

"SESHADRZPURAM
BAfiGALQRE. … £ESPOHBEHTS

.{$y mas ssswna maxox : GOVT.ABVGCflEE}

THIS WRIT APPEAL :5 Eng U/S 4 03' we
KARHAZAKA HIGH cove? A£T ?RAYING :0 SET AS193 $32
ORBER RASSED IN $32 WRIT PETITION' &o.6859;2oo9
fiATED 3:!3f20a9 IN SO Fag AS NQT QUASHIKG mag 32-
Assassmeuw annex memes 27/lzfzcoa-Afimmxunm-E;jwu2

This appeal eaming on for

the foilowing: I . A
J U D 9 e E mwgge.3

Heard the iearned 'e_efi:;$e.'i.e'-
By the consent of the the
matter is heard and'

25" H — :7fV¢vV."'thr«efigh'V the orders of the

3.earnecVE’_’S’iz:g.1eVVc15§:+:1§;e._LVe:1hiV._.the deaisien relied uparn

by the leerhedieeeneeihreporteé in (19773 039 sec

x.fi84?$€.$iATE of eegehe vs. K.T. saanuaz eusuwr.

__3.._ “.:”he:V”‘centention of the_lea.rned counsel fer
is that principles of natural

just;’i,ce*..V: denied and violated in View of the

tixet the assessing eutherity relied upon.
. teertzzfiza etatmnents said te have been recorded
v..,d1z§ring the investigation of a third party which

Vt went against the assessee and without furnishing

‘eelxmefiéryh ‘_
hearing, thie day, HAi~?J{3LA ._;1eJ.ive:cec§_

has also the remsdy cf secona appeal befosesfihs

Kaxnataka sales Tax Appellate wribunal.

5. In the present case, it_H£s,Vs§£_ :9

situation where the appell%fit¥ssssssse*Kha54 h9 7

efficacious remefiy of any nature so tbs: we ha9sV

to entertain writ jurisdidfiicn. “In thstsfiéw of
the matter, having regard to fins facts; we are of
the opinion that 1:12;” upon by him
dyes nat appiy ts $35 fsfifis as tss sresent case
and thers “spei so’ gsofi Jgssssssi made out to
isterftsrfi the learned Single
Judge: 1.. n .

$¢¢br&ing:§;@sfisss§fieal is dismissed. Adi

the ;¢cgten£i¢fis saised here coulé he raised

absféré3£hé”§irstHs§psllate sutharity.

sd/e
udg3

Sd/-3

Tudgg

V’ Sak.*’22340’9