9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 797 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxConstitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - the learned Single Judge had failed to advert to the other contentions raised in the writ petition, based on the question of limitation and other aspects - Held that - The fact is not disputed by learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and it is conceded that the correctness of the decision in M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS 2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT is now pending consideration in other writ appeals. A remittance of the writ petition for a fresh consideration and disposal based on the grounds raised other than the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, is necessary. The writ petition is restored on the files of this court for fresh consideration and disposal by the Single Judge.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under KVAT Act based on procedural grounds and jurisdiction. Interpretation of constitutional validity of Section 174 of KSGST Act. Analysis: The appellant challenged an assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) due to a delay in initiating the assessment proceedings beyond the prescribed period under Section 25(1) of the Act. Additionally, the jurisdiction of the assessing authority was disputed concerning the constitutional amendment introducing Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act (KSGST Act). The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, citing a previous judgment in a related case. The appellant argued that the previous judgment only addressed the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, not the other grounds raised in their petition. The court agreed with the appellant's contention and decided to remit the writ petition for fresh consideration and disposal based on the grounds other than the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act. The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and restoring the writ petition for fresh consideration by the Single Judge. The court directed the Registry to post the writ petition before the Single Judge as per the roster. The interim order that was in place at the time of the writ petition's dismissal was ordered to be revived and continued in force until further proceedings.
|
