9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1991 (1) TMI 423 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Can an assessment made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act be reopened under section 19 of the Act on a mere change of opinion? Analysis: The High Court of Kerala addressed the issue of whether an assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 could be reopened solely based on a change of opinion by the assessing authority. The Revenue challenged the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had held that an assessment cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion. The Court examined Section 19 of the Act, which allows the assessing authority to determine the turnover that has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. The Court emphasized that even if there is a mere change of opinion, Section 19 does not prevent the assessing authority from reassessing the escaped turnover. The Court cited various precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court and Bench decisions of the High Court, to support the view that a mere change of opinion based on the same material is sufficient to reopen the assessment. Furthermore, the Court criticized the Appellate Tribunal's decision and clarified that the principles under the Income-tax Act do not necessarily apply to the interpretation of Section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Court highlighted that certain observations made in a previous judgment were not in line with the binding decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the tax revision case filed by the Revenue, thereby affirming the authority of the assessing authority to reassess the turnover based on a change of opinion. In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that Section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act permits the reassessment of escaped turnover even on the basis of a mere change of opinion by the assessing authority. The Court's decision was supported by various legal precedents, and it clarified the applicability of principles from other statutes in interpreting the provisions of the Act.
|
