9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 563 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxStay of assessment proceedings - dealer - KVAT, 2003 - the issue similar to the case State of Punjab and others v. Shreyans Indus Ltd etc 2016 (3) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT - Held that - It shall be open for the assessment authority to complete the procedure in terms of Exts.P4 and P5 notices after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for hearing. All questions raised by the petitioner shall be considered in the properly constituted appeal/proceedings - the right of petitioner to prefer appeal reserved - petition disposed off - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders, extension of limitation period, legality of proceedings, dealer status, limitation under Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Analysis: The petitioner challenged assessment orders Exts.P3, P4, P5, P6, and P7, seeking a direction to the first respondent not to proceed with assessment proceedings for the years 2009-2010 and 2012-2013. Ext.P3, the assessment order, demanded payment of tax and other dues. The petitioner contended that he is not a dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and that the proceedings were time-barred. Ext.P7 extended the limitation period, but the petitioner argued it was issued after the expiry of the original limitation period. Ext.P4 and P5 notices revised turnover and proposed assessments for the mentioned years, to which the petitioner responded. Ext.P6 was a revenue recovery notice demanding payment. The petitioner's primary contention was that the proceedings were illegal as he was not a dealer, citing a Division Bench judgment. The Department initiated penalty proceedings based on the petitioner's transport activities, indicating ownership of consignments and potential loss to the State Exchequer. The ownership dispute and factual aspects were deemed unsuitable for resolution in a writ petition. The Government Pleader argued that there was no limitation bar under Section 25(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, addressing the benamidar, benami, and input tax credit scenarios. The Court noted that factual disputes regarding dealer status and limitation were unsuitable for resolution in a writ petition. The Government Pleader argued that Ext.P7 was issued as a precaution, and the limitation regarding import purchases was discussed. The Court declined to reevaluate facts to determine the applicability of Section 25(2). Ext.P7 was deemed irrelevant due to being issued after the limitation period. The Court reserved the petitioner's right to appeal Ext.P3, allowed the assessment authority to proceed with Exts.P4 and P5 after a hearing, and directed all petitioner's questions to be addressed in the appeal or proceedings. In conclusion, the Court addressed the legality of the assessment proceedings, dealer status, and extension of limitation period under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The judgment emphasized the need for a proper appeal to resolve factual disputes and reserved the petitioner's right to challenge the assessment order while allowing the assessment authority to continue with the proposed assessments.
|
