IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA, BA.NGA_I,(i)RE
DATED THIS THE 27TH QAY OF NovEzw§11§i2Q§%8
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 1:>;V,'3§r1$r:,E1sIi*§f<i;*:x_ t};*{;lMAR
WRIT PETITION NTo.14€59’f;_,ié0o8{f1*_§:<;s'i*} V' "
BE'I'W EEN
M] S Santhosh Wines,
' Through B.Ver1katcsh"=
ibarmer, Residing at: _ f i
No.22] 1, Krishnarao Ri:)'ad,.f "
(Rama Iyenga=,1″E~?1-said), =: ~ ”
Banga}orei56(.iGO4;”‘ » A’ ‘
IPETITIONER
[By S§’I’l.I{VLJ’._VI'{a:’1dh1’nagar, Bangalore-20.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes,
(Assessment 43rd Circle},
Now 3001′ (‘1’ransitio33-43),
Bangalore City division,
No.2. 83 4 Sheshadrripuram,
Bangalore.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes (D.M.43),
Lakohmi complex,
Sheshadripuram,Ba11gIaor<–:~20.
o This Writ petitiozxis f:1ed1–o.if;dér. _ArtiCl'oo..22€§::» and 227 of
the Constitution of p:ray.i11}g..j:o% 'vquash the inlpugxed
rejection order of R-2 Vida L. _A11I1€Xi1.f%'§-A-_. dated 29-5–~2008
and also the auction… iiiitizited by R-4 vidc
Annexure-B (;1,a;*i:¢_ci—_15–;1 ' '
on…for profiminmy heating this
day, the 11m.de–.1;VhevV__f€»1i§)Wi11g:
'
4; 'i1"1o.roS1.§eC£V_Vof ajrrears of Sales Tax payable under
proiéioioxas of Kamataka Sales Tax Act 1957, petitioner
liability in time and 011 the
V V' _ oufsmrgiirafi' it appears petitioner has become liable to pay
inte-,:;'e$t" flzncier the provisions of Section 13(2) of the
Sales Tax. act, 1957.
2. It appears that the petitioner during iIT1t1€:I’I’€g1″1’€.1II1
had availod of certain settlement] Kara Samadhana Scheme
promulgated by the Government but had not opted to avail
.-.-”’J;’ ‘
.»””f
«”””‘
the Scheme. 8121:. it appears that for the interest part of it,
invoked the jurisdiction of the Government undef’-.$eotion
13{2«-A) of the Act arid had filed an app1ica’tio}:4i_A’..ét.he
State Govemment in the year 2002 _
remission of the interest part on . L
3. The present g’ieva:t1oe ofV”t1fte
white the Government has 1 xtpower under
Section 13(2- } of ttozgders on the
appiication. TheV_authoI–‘iti.e;<s fu1&1otioi1_i;i:g1v'. 'zjnder the Act have
become active wVfor..VI'eeovez3r.. of the interest portion have
taken eoereive_ieeove1jf'e.§ifoeeedi;1gs and it is now proposed
to bring aueti_o:Ar;, S of immovable property bearing
E§1"is1§§fl:;.._.1?,sao Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore owned
19;; for the recovery of the tax for the years
i'9?'4é~95é and the said auction would take place
'\_on 13112-2008 at 11 am. at the premises etc:., that such
is not a 'bo1}a.f1de action as the petitioner's application
K before the State Government is still pending seeking for
Waiver' fiflflw
4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sri.K.J.Kamath
learned counsel would submit that the petitioner haspa right
to seek waiver in terms of the statutory pro*z*isi.ot_’:s’.j’ a
power is conferred on the State Cmvemtaeat’ .eza11’3.i;1e__
such application . It is the dutyliiof to–._
pass orders on the same. Wljiiie tI’1e”StateV»’tf’:o§e;9n;i;:eurit sot
have been acted on such appiieatioti when the
petitioner has fully cotp;}3iie:?i ‘»§gfitf1~-..t}f§e’~3fequirement to claim
the benefit of the provisiotis 1.p.1’3(2-A) and of Rule
388 of the..I§t.11es1iIai1d’–.t%1e res-gzoriclents cannot take coercive
actiozifor” amount even amen the State
Crovermnerit lflas it-iot~.passed orders on the appiicafioli.
is noticed-« that the iiability was in respect. of the
;tI:eaurs 3994-95, 1995-96 and the application for
Waiver evieiili according to the petitioner is filed in the year
2oo2.~
in V. 6.Be that as it may, there is no cause of action for this
Ciourt to issue a writ of mandamus leave aiozie issue of writ
of certiorari to quash, as the Commissioner assuming that
he is not a. competent authority and if the application was
aliowed to be pending before the State Government for six
years, not a tit ease for interference by this cofix1ii”£”_:’i:r:)V avoid.
coercive action. Not paying tax in time is 3]’ of
right. I do no’: find any illegality er an adverse iieiion
against the petitioner not per*iIiit’§;edgii*;.. ‘While 3%.. &iE;1:§.>per1″‘~. ”
to the petitioner to pursue uremediesseisiefiiihere, ilais
petition is dismissed. _