High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Flemingo Duty Free Shops Pvt … vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Flemingo Duty Free Shops Pvt … vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
 3 'B:'£.NGALORE~56O 009

I
1:4 THE HIGH czoum' op KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE}.
-DATE3 THIS THE 137% DAY 0;? FEBRUARY 2oG914... _ L'.._
BEFORE ' 'L  A

THE: HON'BLE: MR. JUSTICE D V SHYLENDR1"1~~E{ Q:M}§'R: 

WRIT Pmmam N£).140?fQ/2Q?38 (‘T5ié:f~;:’:>” * I
Arm ” ‘- »
W.P.NO$.1?ES8:2~602;2{}O8(‘l”‘+RIf:,’S}

BETWEEN ;

M/S FLEMENGO DUTY EREE SHOPS F?V’F.:LT_¥;’>_.v,” V _
A CiGEs;£P.«*%.N’f INCOEF’€C>.1;%A.’?ED,%£§\L.§3E’R ‘E-‘HE A ”
PRNS Q?’ Qempaiaias A«CT.,V i'<3'::.5 _
HAVING ITS REGIS'_{'EI{;E:DVO?'E?ZCE AT 52:23; 1
"mt: ;r~:DUsTR;m:,'A3121s:A;V.§.*1:;23t;«§._'z'f1::r%e:=t3HE: '
mm MUMBAi–4éJr::= » _ '_

AND ALSO AT:..BA'r~:gAL::;RVE I-}'§'FERNA'?¥.QNAL
AIRPORT, BANGALQRE-5E§G 533?,' .

REP. BY ITS: AUT§{GfARf’I*1~.:E.:aT OF’ COMMERCEAL TAXES
g VAN}-JYA THERIGA KARYALAYA
GANDHINAGAR

2

THE JOINT COMMESSIGNER QF’ COMMERCIAL
TAXES (ENFORCEMENT)

SQIJTH ZONE,

“V’I’K-Q”, KORAMANGALA

BANGAL£)Ei’E–i’36O O4′?

Ix}

3 “§’PIE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GF’
CZOIVIMERICIAL TAXES {EMF} –I}
SOUTH ZONE-

“V”I’}<Z~2", KQRAMANGAIA
BANGALQF2E–5f:Q 04?

4 THE UNION OF’ INDIA
RE? 3? ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVEIFJIJE
NEW DELHI ‘

THE DEPEJTY COMMESSIAGDIER
cusmms, zNTE;RmA’r1c:NAL’ga;R?og?,_ .
BANGALORE-;550j;{3.-2? ~ ,.,…RE.$PONDEN”I’S

(J1

{By Sri: K MvI$H’wAf{L::>Gzé§vA M3’.;’HcG?§”””

THESE ‘EVRIT 1=>Ee.Ti’;*1.r~zs-«..__A121§’, FILED UNDER ARTICLES
225 S5 22? OF ‘I*:{E ::i0NsTm3~?;c3N 01:’ INDIA, WITH A PRAYER
TO: QUASH THE ORpE22.:>T.«;..8.2008, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMM§SS£iONE.R C2?’ ~<?:oMM§;RC1AL TAXES EENFI 11, SOUTH

IZGIQE, I;-§E&E~IQ_A.L(DvRE AT"ixNNE:Xi,%I2E»AC; QUASH THE ORIDER

'{?T.:'3,8.f»2_(){38 P.A$§§E.D BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
:i3OM3R%Ef~<€iIAL_ T'AXES—-.[ENF§ 11, SOUTH ZONE, BANGALORE AT
ANNE}<;uT£:E-;a.tj';..gfim;-,.,~~

Théise Wffi F'e$i1:io11s coming on for Preliminaxy

-. jv3v1fi§i1’iI1g, t11i3_§?ay, the Court made the follawing :

.- ” s_tatut:)’1*g: a_:’1:I:;_11rtV”i.::1 thf: nornlal couxse as provided under the

,. ,, ._ ste1{.:1{iéS A ih€I;I1S€’:IVfi$. ‘M

‘J!

opined by the Supreme Court, it is net demlrabie to exa:i1i,I_ 1t:_
such qufiistions in writ jurisdictien at the thres=1;{<$§d*«» _

19979 1; EL'? 497(s<::) :

‘This case :3 a greed l’I:’L£VfE§4fT’eCI.?;>7?”£3itI:’
the High. Court should no§f,vir;teryé’ng”‘1’n rezIg=.r~”‘:ue;-L 2
matters in exerdse cf lUi?’iv.._+ii£!ft’$£iiéiI’OnV
adequate aItemativ_e stam_to}§ . _ _ rezzraedfés’ — .4::re_. ii
ava,iia.ble. In the “~.ga.fiip:Iicx1t1’ons
have arisen because of by
the Patnav after
quashing. {She :”.*”§:V(iL’!1′.’I’£}_’&:’V.'”£:;’ in

course ofpt-p{:eediiags_ Ih.e V£;’é’niraI Excises

CI.7H:V£7vsSC3:VI1″gi’t+.’:t.v’,% N “fl

that the qzléstiorx Vsh_oi1~},ci mlegated to the respective:

the ‘Si1jj3t’eméé or the superior Courts in the country in

the maui1_v;e”r.AVaé$ ‘provided by the statute itself, but can reach

6

5. I am net izlclineci to exercise the disclxetion in fa§I@3,11*
of the patitioner 1:0 enitzrtajn the Writ Petitians and
reject the request to adjourn that matter ts next

3 These Writ Petitions are
prejudicé to the request of the {(3%

alternative remedy of ap’p€é:l_ “”~..1;z1déi* V 111$ 1

€11EiCUIl€I1tS.

 V     f§%]'u.dge

AKC