Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 669 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCan an assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 be completed belatedly by availing of the time extended for the relevant year under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Held that - Heavy reliance is placed by the petitioner on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. 2007 (10) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA to urge that a reasonable period of four years should be read into the Rules. The Supreme Court has in the said decision held that the power to revise suo motu under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 should be exercised within a reasonable period. The period was arrived at on the basis of the statutory scheme and the notice issued to show cause against the proposed revision of assessment order five years after its completion was quashed. It is the case of the petitioner that a period of four years for completing the assessment under rule 6(5) of the Rules is reasonable when the same period has been specified for reassessment under rule 6(7) and 6(8) of the Rules. There is however no scope for such hypothesis in the instant case since section 17 of the KGST Act comes to the rescue of the respondents to complete the assessment within the extended time in view of section 9(2) of the CST Act. I however permit the petitioner to file objection to exhibits P1, P3 and P4 notices and raise all available contentions notwithstanding the fact that its attempt to nip the assessment in the bud is hereby aborted. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Can an assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 be completed belatedly by availing of the time extended for the relevant year under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963? Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner filed a return under the CST Act for the year 2003-04, claiming exemption for consignment sales. The assessment process was delayed due to changes in the assessing team. The petitioner challenged the pre-assessment notices issued beyond four years of the relevant assessment year, arguing that a time limit should be read into rule 6(5) of the Rules for completing assessments. The respondents relied on section 9(2) of the CST Act, stating that authorities under the KGST Act can assess tax under the CST Act without a prescribed time limit, utilizing section 17 of the KGST Act for extended assessment time. The court examined the provisions of section 9(2) of the CST Act, emphasizing that no time limit is specified for completing assessments under rule 6(5) of the Rules. The court noted that section 17 of the KGST Act, amended by the Finance Act, 2009, extended the assessment completion time. Citing precedents, the court rejected the petitioner's argument for a four-year limit, allowing the respondents to complete the assessment within the extended time frame. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the notices were not time-barred and could not be quashed. The petitioner was permitted to file objections to the notices but could not prevent the assessment process. The judgment highlights the interplay between the CST Act, KGST Act, and relevant Rules in completing assessments, emphasizing the absence of a specific time limit under rule 6(5) of the Rules and the applicability of section 17 of the KGST Act for extended assessment periods.
|