GUPTA ENTERPRISES Vs. DY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases arise under the KGST Act. They may, generally, be called appeal pending matters, though, in some cases, appeals are not filed. Since identical points are involved in these cases, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) In this case, the petitioner challenges Exhibit P4 proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Idukki, passed under Section 35 of the KGST Act, setting aside the final assessment orders, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Devikulam, for the years 1992-93,1993-94 and 1994-95, and remitting them back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said remand, the Commercial , Tax Officer has issued Exhibit P5 notice, proposing to hear the petitioner for completing the assessment. This writ petition is filed, challenging Exhibit P5, without invoking the appellate remedy available to the petitioner. When there is an appellate remedy available under the Act, a frog leap made to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing this writ petition, cannot be entertained.

(3.) This writ petition is filed, challenging Exhibit P1 assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer, for the year 2001-02 and the consequential revenue recovery notice Exhibit P2. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against Exhibit P1 and therefore, there is nothing wrong with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated, to recover the amount covered by it. Further, the approach to this Court, challenging the assessment order, without invoking the statutory remedy cannot be entertained.