9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 189 - HC - GSTValidity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - Non-consideration of other grounds raised before the single member bench of the HC - Time limitation for completion of proceedings - HELD THAT - The issue is already 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. A remittance of the writ petition for a fresh consideration and disposal on the grounds raised other than validity of Section 174, would suffice to meet the ends of justice - writ petition is restored on to the files of this Court.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under KVAT Act based on time limit stipulated in Section 25(1) and constitutional validity of Section 174 of KSGST Act. Analysis: The petitioner appealed against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) for the year 2011-12. The main contention was that the order was unsustainable as the proceedings were initiated beyond the time limit specified in Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Additionally, the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act (KSGST Act) was also challenged. The writ petition was dismissed along with other cases, citing a judgment in a related case dated 11.01.2019 which was unfavorable to the petitioner. The counsel for the appellant argued that the previous judgment only dealt with the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act and did not consider other grounds raised, including the question of limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The Government Pleader for the respondents admitted that the previous judgment focused solely on the validity of Section 174 and acknowledged that numerous writ appeals stemming from that judgment were awaiting disposal. Considering the circumstances, the court concluded that a remittance of the writ petition for fresh consideration and disposal on grounds other than the validity of Section 174 would serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the writ appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petition was restored to the court's files for reconsideration. The Registry was instructed to assign the petition to the Single Judge for fresh consideration based on the other grounds raised. Any existing interim stay order was to be revived and remain in effect.
|
