2019 (3) TMI 1692 - HC - GST

Other grounds based on the question of limitation - Constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - time limitation stipulated under Section 19 of the 101th Amendment of the Constitution - HELD THAT - The petitioner had also raised various other grounds based on the question of limitation. Therefore it is evident that the writ petition was disposed of without considering those contentions on merits. Therefore it is appropriate to have a remand of the matter to the Single Bench for considering those grounds. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside - The writ petition is restored on to the file of this court.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to pre-assessment notice under Section 174 of KSGST Act; Constitutional validity of Section 174; Assessment beyond the period of limitation under Section 19 of the Constitution; Challenge under provisions of KVAT Act 2003; Dismissal of writ petition based on previous judgment; Failure to consider challenges based on limitation; Remand for considering grounds of limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a pre-assessment notice under Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KSGST Act), primarily questioning the constitutional validity of the section and arguing that the assessment proposed was beyond the period of limitation specified under Section 19 of the Constitution and barred under the KVAT Act 2003. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge, citing a previous judgment in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer(IB)-I, which addressed the constitutional validity of Section 174. However, the dismissal was contested in a writ appeal on the grounds that the judgment in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels(India) Pvt. Ltd. did not cover challenges related to limitation. Upon reviewing the writ petition, the Court found that various other grounds based on the question of limitation were raised but not considered on merits during the initial judgment. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter back to the Single Bench for a detailed consideration of the limitation-based contentions.

The Court emphasized that the remand would specifically focus on the contentions related to the question of limitation raised against the assessment. It was clarified that any interim stay granted during the writ petition's pendency would be reinstated until final disposal. The decision to remand the case was based on the recognition that the writ petition was disposed of without a thorough examination of the grounds concerning the period of limitation, necessitating a fresh review by the Single Bench to ensure all relevant issues are adequately addressed.