9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 174 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery of the tax assessed with respect to the year 2000-2001 - KGST Act - HELD THAT - The assessment finalized with respect to the year 2000-2001 is within time. We take note of the fact that, Ext.P13 is a composite notice with respect to the year 1999-2000 also. There is no challenge raised with respect to the said assessment contending question of limitation. The only contention raised against the demand for the said year is that the amounts already paid was not given credit. The appellant had raised a contention that, the appeal referred to in Ext.P3 judgment has not been disposed of and no order in that respect has been communicated to him. There is no merit in the contention that the revenue recovery steps cannot be pursued with respect to the said year. However, if due credit has not been given to the interim payments made, it will be left open to the appellant to point out the same before the recovery authorities and to seek set off. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act) for the year 2000-2001. 2. Limitation period for completing the assessment. 3. Inclusion of exempted commodities as taxable items for the year 1999-2000. 4. Validity of the assessment order at the stage of recovery. 5. Applicability of the doctrine of res judicata and estoppel. Detailed Analysis: 1. Correctness of the Assessment under the KGST Act for the Year 2000-2001 The appellant challenged the correctness of the assessment made under the KGST Act for the year 2000-2001. The assessment order (Ext.P10) dated 28-03-2006 was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, subject to a directive to recompute the liability after providing an opportunity to object to the computation of interest. The appellant conceded that the assessment for the year 2000-2001 was not set aside in previous judgments. 2. Limitation Period for Completing the Assessment The primary contention was that the assessment for the year 2000-2001 was barred by limitation as per Section 17(6) of the KGST Act. The original statute required assessments to be completed within four years from the expiry of the relevant year. The assessment dated 28-03-2006 was argued to be beyond this period, with the appellant further contending that the order was served only on 23-09-2006, beyond the statutory limit. However, the court noted that the Finance Act, 2005, amended Section 17(6) to allow assessments for the year 2000-2001 to be completed by 31-03-2006. Since the assessment was completed on 28-03-2006, it was within the permissible period. Moreover, the Finance Act, 2006, extended the period to 31-03-2007 for assessments pending as of 31-03-2006, thus covering the assessment in question. 3. Inclusion of Exempted Commodities as Taxable Items for the Year 1999-2000 The appellant challenged the inclusion of exempted commodities as taxable items for the year 1999-2000. The Single Judge found that the appellant failed to produce requisite documents for claiming such exemptions, and the appellate order for that year had attained finality. Thus, the claim for exemption was not accepted. 4. Validity of the Assessment Order at the Stage of Recovery The appellant argued that the assessment order was a nullity due to being passed beyond the limitation period and could be challenged at the recovery stage. The court referred to Supreme Court decisions, noting that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage. However, it was held that even if the assessment was barred by time, it would not render the assessment a nullity but an illegality to be contested through appeal, not at the recovery stage. The court concluded that the assessment, confirmed by the appellate authority, could not be challenged on the grounds of limitation at the recovery stage. 5. Applicability of the Doctrine of Res Judicata and Estoppel The appellant contended that the assessment order, being a nullity, should not be subject to res judicata or estoppel. The court held that even if an assessment was completed wrongly, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The principle that courts have jurisdiction to decide both right and wrong was emphasized, rejecting the notion that an erroneous decision on limitation would render the assessment void. Conclusion The court concluded that the assessment for the year 2000-2001 was within the permissible period as per the amended provisions of the KGST Act. The challenge based on limitation was not maintainable at the recovery stage. The inclusion of exempted commodities for the year 1999-2000 was upheld due to the appellant's failure to provide necessary documentation. The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the assessment and the recovery proceedings. The appellant was allowed to seek credit for interim payments before the recovery authorities.
|
