2019 (6) TMI 175 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Time Limitation - relevant date - starting point of limitation is from the date of detection of fraud or not - HELD THAT - The counsel for the petitioner does not object to availing the remedy under Section 59 of the Act but contends that having regarded to a question of importance by way of limitation is raised by the petitioner, the interest of the petitioner is reasonably protected keeping in view the swift decision taken through Ext.P7. The petitioner can be relegated to work out the relief available under Section 59 within four weeks from today by enclosing a copy of this order and this Court directs that no coercive step is taken by the respondents pursuant to Ext.P7 till the revision is disposed of and order communicated to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Exts. P4 and P7 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively.
2. Interpretation of limitation period under Section 56 of the KVAT Act, 2003.
3. Availability of further revision under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, 2003.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash Exts. P4 and P7 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The assessment was completed by the 1st respondent through Ext. P1. The 2nd respondent issued a notice under Section 56 of the KVAT Act, 2003, to which the petitioner responded through Ext. P3, raising an objection under subsection (c) of Section 56 (2) regarding the limitation period. The 2nd respondent determined that the starting point of limitation is from the date of detection of fraud, a finding contested by the petitioner in the writ petition.

2. The main contention in the case was the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 56 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner argued that the limitation period had expired, while the 2nd respondent considered the starting point of limitation to be from the detection of fraud. The Court examined the objection of limitation raised by the petitioner and directed that the petitioner can avail the remedy under Section 59 of the Act within four weeks, ensuring no coercive steps are taken by the respondents pursuant to Ext. P7 until the revision is disposed of. The Court emphasized the swift decision-making process and set a timeline for the disposal of the revision filed by the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ prayer, asserting that the petitioner has the option of further revision under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, 2003. While the petitioner did not object to availing this remedy, it was argued that the question of limitation raised was of importance. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's concern and provided a direction for the petitioner to work out the relief available under Section 59 within a specified timeline, ensuring the petitioner's interests are reasonably protected. The judgment highlighted the need for adherence to statutory remedies and the importance of a fair and timely resolution in matters of legal significance.