9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1071 - HC - GSTConstitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - Time limitation - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS 2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT where it was held that the petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017. It is appropriate to remit the matter for a fresh consideration and disposal by the Single Judge, on the question of limitation provided under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act.
Issues:
Challenge to pre-assessment notice based on limitation under Section 25(1) of KVAT Act and validity of Section 174 of KSGST Act. Analysis: The appellant challenged a pre-assessment notice (Ext.P1) primarily on the grounds of limitation under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Additionally, the appellant contested the validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KSGST Act), arguing it conflicted with the Constitution. The writ petition, along with several other cases, was dismissed by a Single Judge referring to a previous judgment (W.P.(C)No.11335/2018) from 11.01.2019, which was believed to cover the issues against the petitioner. However, the appellant's counsel argued that the previous judgment only addressed the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act and did not consider the limitation aspect under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Recognizing this, the court deemed it appropriate to remit the matter for fresh consideration by the Single Judge specifically on the question of limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the judgment dated 25.01.2019, and restoring the writ petition for a fresh decision on the challenge related to the limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The court directed the Registry to post the writ petition before the Single Judge for this specific purpose. The interim stay that was in effect at the time of the writ petition's dismissal was ordered to be revived and continued.
|
