KUNHIKANNAN JEWELLERY Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT)-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Ext. P6 order was issued following Ext. P1 notice under Section 25(1) read with Section 8f(ii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, 'Act', for short. The challenge made in writ jurisdiction was turned down by the learned single Judge holding that the issues raised have to be placed for consideration in statutory appeals. It is also noticed that, insofar as the procedure followed through Ext. P1 is concerned, there was no objection raised as to non-compliance of statutory procedure prior to the cancellation of the order permitting the petitioner to pay tax at compounded rate for the assessment year in question. That notwithstanding, the learned single Judge was of the view that the questions raised cannot be taken up for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. However, it was noted that the substance of Ext. P6 order may have to be carried in appeal to two authorities because it related to two independent issues which have to be agitated in independent and separate jurisdictions. Accordingly, the learned single Judge recorded the following decisions:

(3.) In view of the aforesaid, we are not impressed to take the view that the learned single Judge acted contrary to the constitutional scheme in having relegated the appellant-writ petitioner to statutory remedies available under the Act.