9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 674 - HC - GSTConstitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act - Time limitation - HELD THAT - A remittance of the writ petition for consideration of the questions other than the validity of Section 174 of the KGST Act, is warranted and will serve the ends of justice. Hence we are inclined to remit the writ petition for a fresh consideration and disposal. The writ petition is restored on to the files of this court for fresh consideration and disposal on the issue.
Issues:
Challenge to notices proposing refixation of payment of compounded tax under Section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, and consideration of other grounds raised in the writ petition. Analysis: The petitioner challenged notices proposing refixation of payment of compounded tax under Section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, arguing that the proceedings were initiated beyond the time limit specified under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Additionally, the petitioner contested the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act (KSGST Act). The writ petition was dismissed along with other cases, citing a previous judgment that covered the issue against the petitioner. However, it was acknowledged that the previous judgment only addressed the validity of Section 174, and not the other grounds raised in the petition. The appellant's counsel argued that the previous judgment only covered the validity of Section 174 and that the other grounds raised in the writ petition were not considered. It was noted that several writ appeals related to the issue had been admitted by the court and were pending before the Division Bench. Considering these circumstances, the court found it necessary to remit the writ petition for fresh consideration and disposal, focusing on the questions other than the validity of Section 174 of the KGST Act to serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the Writ Appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was restored for fresh consideration and disposal on the points mentioned. The Registry was directed to post the writ petition before the learned Single Judge dealing with the subject matter as per the roster. The interim order that was in force at the time of the dismissal of the writ petition was to stand revived and continue to be in force.
|
