9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 470 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of Natural Justice - Jurisdiction - Power of Respondent of Re-opening of self assessment after expiry of statutory time limit - section 25A to KVAT Act - HELD THAT - The matter in issue is covered in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 judgment in the case in Philips India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Others 2016 (10) TMI 814 - KERALA HIGH COURT as well as by Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Court on 02/02/2017 in WP(c) 35493/2016. Ext.P3 judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. Further petitioner has got a specific case that Ext.P2 order is an ex-parte order and the notice dated 26/09/2019 has not been served on the petitioner. The impugned Ext. P2 ex-parte order will stand quashed - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Validity of an ex-parte assessment order under the KVAT Act for the year 2010-11. 2. Jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to re-open an assessment already completed through self-assessment. 3. Compliance with statutory time limits for assessment proceedings. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P2) passed by the 1st respondent under section 25A of the KVAT Act for the year 2010-11. The petitioner contended that the assessment completed under section 21 of the KVAT Act was self-assessed with proof of tax payment, and any assessment proceedings initiated after the statutory time limit would be without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on previous judgments (Exts.P3 and P4) by the Court in similar circumstances to support this argument. 2. The Court considered the petitioner's contentions regarding the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to re-open an assessment already self-assessed. The petitioner emphasized that the limitation period for the assessment of 2010-11 had expired on 31/03/2016, making the assessment order completed on 30/09/2019 beyond the statutory time limit. Citing precedents like the Philips India Ltd. case, the petitioner argued that the assessment order was unsustainable due to being issued after the limitation period. 3. The Court noted that the matter at hand was in favor of the petitioner based on previous judgments (Ext.P3 and P4) and upheld by the Division Bench. Additionally, the petitioner's claim that the notice alleged to have been served was not received further supported the decision to quash the ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P2). Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned assessment order. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition (civil) in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory time limits for assessment proceedings and the jurisdictional limitations on re-opening self-assessed assessments under the KVAT Act.
|
