In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the

following reliefs:

“15. This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased

to issue a declaration declaring the limitation

prescribed in Sub-section (7)(b) of Section 63 of the

Act (Annexure-“H”) that if the Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal does not dispose of the appeals within

three years from the date of the stay order, the order

of stay granted by it shall stand vacated and that the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal shall not make any

further order staying proceedings of recovery of the

other 70% of disputed tax and other amount, it

arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and therefore

ultra vires Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

of India.

16. This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased

to issue a writ of Certiorari or a direction in the

³

nature of a writ of Certiorari quashing teh

endorsement

bearing

No.CTO

(Audit)

–

2.5/192/2022-23 dated 07.09.2022 issued by the

Third Respondent under the provisions of the Act

pertaining to the assessment periods 2009-10 in the

case of the Petitioner (Annexure-“E”).

17. This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased

to issue such other writ or writs or directions in the

nature of a writ as this Hon’ble High Court may

deem it fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of

the petitioner’s case”.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the

material on record.

3.

In

addition

to

reiterating

the

various

contentions urged in the petition and referring to the

material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that aggrieved by the re-assessment order dated

23.12.2013 passed under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka

Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘the KVAT Act’),

petitioner

preferred

appeals

in

VAT.AP.Nos.391

to

401/2013-14, which were dismissed vide order dated

17.09.2016, which were also challenged before the

⁴

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No.880/2016, in

which, the KAT passed an interim order on 07.12.2016. It

is submitted that the said appeal is still pending

adjudication before the KAT and in view of Section 63(7)(b)

of the KVAT Act, the appeal having not been disposed of

within the prescribed period of 365 days, the interim order

stood vacated, pursuant to which, the respondent issued

the impugned Endorsement dated 07.09.2022, aggrieved

by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the

present petition.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed

reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

M/s.Thyssenkrupp Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of

Karnataka & Others – W.P.No.12965/2022 dated

30.06.2022.

4.

Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents

submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

5.

In Thyssenkrupp’s case supra, this Court

took into account the fact that the appeal could not be

⁵

disposed of within 365 days as required in Section 63(7)(b)

of the KVAT Act and consequently, quashed the impugned

Endorsement and directed the KAT to dispose of the

appeals and continued the interim order passed by the KAT

till disposal of the appeals by holding as under:-

“The petitioner is a private limited company

engaged in supply and installation of lift and

elevators. It was a registered dealer under the

Karnataka

Value

Added

Tax

Act,

2003

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the KVAT Act’ for short)

and the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment

made by the petitioner for the assessment years

2006-07 and 2007-08 under the KVAT Act were

reopened by the authorities and the petitioner was

held liable to pay certain amounts as per the

orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of

Commercial Taxes (Appeals).

2.

Aggrieved by the said orders, the

petitioner has preferred STA No.466/2016 for the

assessment year 2006-07 and STA No.468/2016

for the assessment year 2007-08 before the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal after hearing

the petitioner has granted interim orders on

08