9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1504 - HC - GSTValidity of 101st Constitutional Amendment of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - enforceability of provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003 (KVAT Act) only until the expiry of one year from the date on which the nationwide goods and service tax was implemented or until the amendment was repealed by a competent legislature? - constitutional validity of orders u/s 25(1) of the KVAT Act 2003 for the assessment years from 2013-14 to 2016-17. HELD THAT - The aforesaid challenge of 101st Constitutional Amendment of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 has been considered by this Court in M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1 AND OTHERS 2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT and decided against the petitioner. Hence in view of the judgment in Sheen Golden Jewels the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief against the said challenge. However as far as Exts. P1 to P4 orders passed by the second respondent are concerned the petitioner has to avail the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority and it is opined that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the statutory authorities by way of appeal. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to 101st Constitutional Amendment of Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and validity of Exts. P1 to P4 orders under Sec.25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the 101st Constitutional Amendment of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arguing that the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) should only be enforceable until the expiry of one year from the implementation of nationwide goods and service tax or until repealed by a competent legislature. The court referred to a previous judgment in Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, where a similar challenge was considered and decided against the petitioner. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner is not entitled to relief against this challenge based on the previous judgment. 2. Regarding the validity of Exts. P1 to P4 orders passed by the second respondent under Sec.25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 for the assessment years from 2013-14 to 2016-17, the court directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. The court opined that the writ petition could be disposed of by instructing the petitioner to approach the statutory authorities through the appeal process. The court granted the petitioner a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment to file an appeal along with petitions for condonation of delay and stay before the competent appellate authority. 3. The court further specified that if the petitioner complies with filing the appeal and necessary petitions, the appellate authority must consider and decide on the petitions within one month, taking a lenient view on the condonation of delay due to the pendency of the writ petition. For a period of two months from the date of receipt of the judgment, no coercive steps should be taken to recover the amount covered by Exts. P1 to P4. However, failure by the petitioner to adhere to the directions would result in the vacation of the stay of recovery granted, requiring the petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment and writ petition before the competent authority. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the challenges to the constitutional amendment and the validity of the assessment orders, along with the court's directives for the petitioner to pursue the appeal process within specified timelines to seek appropriate remedies.
|
