2024 (12) TMI 1293 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Entitlement to recall or set aside an assessment order issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 based on a subsequent order issued due to a mistake - benefit of an Amnesty Scheme - HELD THAT - The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. It is not disputed before that Ext. P2 order, which is issued under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act on 15.12.2018, has not been set aside or modified in any proceedings. If that be the case, the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act does not permit the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order for the same assessment year. If such course of action is permitted, it would result in contradictory orders being passed without the original order being set aside or modified in a manner known to law. In such circumstances, there are no hesitation to hold that the second assessment order (Ext. P3) dated 29.03.2021 is non-est in law and cannot be sustained. Therefore, in that view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider the question as to whether the prayer to recall the earlier assessment order dated 15.12.2018 was maintainable under Section 66 of the KVAT Act. The petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs as sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition will stand dismissed.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recall or set aside an assessment order issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 based on a subsequent order issued due to a mistake?

2. Whether the petitioner can avail the benefit of an Amnesty Scheme for settling the tax liability?

3. Whether the second assessment order issued for the same year is valid under the law?

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS:

Issue 1:

The petitioner sought to recall an assessment order issued under the KVAT Act based on a subsequent order. The petitioner argued that the original assessment was completed hastily, and the subsequent assessment was based on a thorough verification of records. The petitioner contended that they were entitled to apply for an amnesty and also under Section 66 of the KVAT Act for rectification.

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The court considered Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act and the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme of 2021 and 2022.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The court held that the Assessing Authority cannot pass a fresh order for the same assessment year without setting aside or modifying the original order. The court found that the second assessment order was non-est in law and could not be sustained.

Key evidence and findings:

The court noted that the original assessment order had not been set aside or modified in any proceedings.

Application of law to facts:

The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to recall the original assessment order based on the subsequent order issued in error.

Conclusions:

The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in this regard.

Issue 2:

The petitioner sought to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme for settling the tax liability.

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The court considered the availability of the Amnesty Scheme and the approximate amount the petitioner would need to pay under the scheme.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The court noted that the petitioner could avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme if desired.

Key evidence and findings:

The court highlighted the option available to the petitioner to apply for amnesty under the current scheme.

Application of law to facts:

The court directed the petitioner to avail the Amnesty Scheme if they chose to do so.

Conclusions:

The court held that the petitioner could avail the Amnesty Scheme if desired.

Issue 3:

The validity of the second assessment order issued for the same year.

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The court analyzed the provisions of Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act and the implications of contradictory orders.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The court found that the second assessment order was non-est in law and could not be sustained.

Key evidence and findings:

The court emphasized that contradictory orders without setting aside the original order were impermissible.

Application of law to facts:

The court concluded that the second assessment order was invalid under the law.

Conclusions:

The court held that the second assessment order was non-est in law and dismissed the writ petition.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS:

1. The second assessment order issued for the same year was found to be non-est in law and invalid.

2. The petitioner was not entitled to recall the original assessment order based on the subsequent order issued in error.

3. The petitioner could avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme if desired.

← Previous Next →