Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (8) TMI 1389 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the first and second provisos to sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Legislative competence of the State to amend Section 40 retrospectively.
3. Jurisdiction of re-assessment orders passed under the amended Section 40.
4. Applicability of the amended Section 40 to assessments that had already attained finality.
5. Interpretation of the term "substitution" in legislative amendments.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of the Provisos to Section 40(1)
The petitioners argued that the first and second provisos to sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, substituted by Act No.54/2013 with effect from 01.04.2005, are beyond legislative competence and thus, illegal, invalid, and ultra vires of the Constitution of India. They contended that these amendments retrospectively extended the period of limitation for assessments, thereby reviving time-barred assessments, which is unconstitutional.

Issue 2: Legislative Competence to Amend Retrospectively
The petitioners claimed that the State Legislature lacked the competence to enact retrospective amendments that alter the period of limitation for assessments, arguing that such amendments cannot revive assessments that had already become final or time-barred under the unamended law. They cited several judgments to support their contention that retrospective amendments affecting substantive rights or imposing new liabilities cannot be presumed unless explicitly stated by the statute.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Re-assessment Orders
The petitioners contended that the re-assessment orders passed under the amended Section 40 were without jurisdiction, as the limitation period for such assessments had already expired under the unamended law. They argued that the deemed assessment under Section 38 should benefit the assessee, and any re-assessment beyond the prescribed limitation period is without authority.

Issue 4: Applicability to Final Assessments
The petitioners argued that the retrospective amendment to Section 40 cannot be applied to assessments that had already attained finality due to the expiry of the limitation period under the unamended law. They contended that such retrospective application is unconstitutional and violates the principle of legal certainty and finality.

Issue 5: Interpretation of "Substitution"
The court analyzed the term "substitution" used in the legislative amendments and concluded that it implies the repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement with the new provision. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana, which held that substitution results in the repeal of the earlier provision and the introduction of a new provision in its place.

Court's Findings:

1. Constitutional Validity and Legislative Competence:
The court held that the State Legislature has the power to legislate both prospectively and retrospectively unless expressly prohibited by the Act. The amendments to Section 40 were within the legislative competence of the State, and the retrospective effect was intended to extend the limitation period for assessments.

2. Jurisdiction of Re-assessment Orders:
The court found that the re-assessment orders passed under the amended Section 40 were valid and within jurisdiction. It held that the amendments extended the limitation period for assessments, allowing the authorities to re-open and conclude assessments within the extended period.

3. Applicability to Final Assessments:
The court held that the retrospective amendment to Section 40 applied to assessments that had already attained finality under the unamended law. It concluded that the legislative intent was clear in extending the limitation period, and the amended provision must be given full effect.

4. Interpretation of "Substitution":
The court agreed with the petitioners that "substitution" implies the repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement with the new provision. However, it held that the retrospective substitution of Section 40 was valid and extended the limitation period for assessments.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the validity and retrospective application of the amendments to Section 40 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The court directed that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioners from challenging the assessment/re-assessment orders before the jurisdictional appellate authority in accordance with the law. If appeals are filed within eight weeks, the appellate authority should not insist on an application for condonation of delay. No order as to costs was made.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates