2019 (10) TMI 267 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - it was contended that the proceedings of the assessments were initiated beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that a remand of the writ petition to the Single Judge for adjudication on the question as to whether the impugned assessments are hit by Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, would suffice to meet the ends of justice. The writ petition is restored on to the files of this court - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to dismissal of writ petition, assessment orders challenged on grounds of limitation under KVAT Act, constitutional validity of Section 174 of KSGST Act, failure to consider limitation question, need for re-consideration of grounds based on KVAT Act.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of the writ petition, which had challenged assessment orders (Exts.P1 to P8) on the basis of limitation under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Additionally, the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (KSGST Act) was also contested. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, citing a previous judgment that went against the appellant. The appellant argued that the limitation issue was not properly considered and referenced a decision in Philips India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), highlighting the need for re-consideration.

The Government Pleader for the respondents argued that the limitation question does not apply due to a specific provision in sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the KVAT Act. However, it was acknowledged that the previous judgment only covered the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act. The appellant clarified that they are not pursuing challenges related to Section 174 but emphasized the need for a review of the grounds based on Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The Court decided that a remand of the writ petition to the Single Judge for a detailed examination of whether the assessments are affected by Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act would serve the interests of justice.

Therefore, the writ appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for fresh disposal by the Single Judge. Any existing interim stay order was revived and directed to continue. The Court's decision focused on addressing the specific issue of limitation under the KVAT Act, signaling a potential re-evaluation of the assessment orders in light of this aspect.