9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 886 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessment - challenge to revision on the ground that the same was passed after the expiry of the time limit prescribed for the said purpose in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act - Held that - Going by the plain meaning of the words used in the provision, the word year therein can never be the assessment year. Further, if the word year contained in the provision is reckoned as the assessment year, then the power under that section cannot be exercised, if the assessment is not completed within four years from the relevant assessment year. It is directed that if the petitioner prefers a revision challenging the impugned order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be treated as one filed within time - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Assessment under Central Sales Tax Act challenged due to time limit for revision under Section 56 of the Act. Analysis: The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, challenged the revision of assessment under the Central Sales Act for the year 2011-’12. The revision was completed on 28.11.2013 and later revised by the third respondent through Ext.P3 order. The petitioner contended that the revision order, passed on 29.07.2017, exceeded the time limit prescribed under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of the term 'year' in the context of the statute. The court examined sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act, which outlines the conditions under which the Deputy Commissioner can exercise the power of revision. The provision states that the power cannot be exercised if more than four years have elapsed from the year in which the order was passed. The petitioner argued that the 'year' referred to in clause (c) should be interpreted as the assessment year of the assessee. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that if 'year' was construed as the assessment year, it would lead to impractical outcomes, such as restricting the exercise of power if the assessment is not completed within four years from the relevant assessment year. Ultimately, the court rejected the petitioner's contention regarding the interpretation of the term 'year' and directed that if the petitioner chooses to challenge the impugned order through revision within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment, it would be considered as filed within time. Additionally, the court ordered a stay on enforcing the impugned order for a month to allow the petitioner to challenge it in revision. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
