9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1830 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment under section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003 - time limitation - HELD THAT - All the above writ petitions have to be allowed setting aside the impugned assessment orders passed under section 25(1) as also the orders under section 25B of the KVAT Act extending the limitation period. We make it clear that only the assessment orders challenged in the above writ petitions and the orders under section 25B of the KVAT Act have been set aside by us. Petition allowed.
Issues: Challenge to assessment under section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the ground of limitation.
Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses various cases challenging assessments under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act based on the ground of limitation. Some assessments were attempted to be reopened due to penalty orders issued against the assessee for the relevant assessment year. However, in all cases, the initiation of proceedings exceeded the period specified under section 25(1). In certain instances, proceedings were initiated under an extension granted by the Deputy Commissioner under section 25B of the Act. 2. Referring to a previous judgment in W. A. No. 1184 of 2013 dated July 5, 2018, the court clarified that the limitation under section 25(1) pertains to the initiation of proceedings, as indicated by the term "proceed to determine." This interpretation aligns with a Full Bench decision in Cholayil Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) [2016] 92 VST 308 (Ker) [FB]; [2015] 4 KLT 516 (Ker) [FB]. 3. The Special Government Pleader contended that the limitation period was extended from the Act's commencement due to a provision substitution. However, this argument was rejected in W. A. No. 230 of 2017 and related cases, as per a judgment on July 19, 2018 (Commercial Tax Officer, Anchal v. S. Najeem [2019] 65 GSTR 127 (Ker)). 4. Based on binding precedents, the court allowed all the writ petitions, thereby annulling the impugned assessment orders under section 25(1) and the extension orders under section 25B of the KVAT Act. It was clarified that only the challenged assessment orders and the section 25B orders were set aside. 5. Consequently, the writ petitions were granted, and each party was directed to bear their respective costs.
|
