2019 (10) TMI 1007 - HC - GST

Omission to consider the other grounds raised against the impugned order of assessment - constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - HELD THAT - Such a question was raised before the assessing authority and it was adjudicated therein. Therefore the question of limitation being one which could be considered as a question of law can be permitted to be raised in the writ petition - Since no grounds except validity of Section 174 of KSGST Act was considered in the impugned judgment we find it appropriate to remit the writ petition for consideration of other grounds available to the appellant in particular the question of limitation. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to dismissal of writ petition based on sustainable grounds, consideration of constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, omission to consider other grounds raised against the impugned order of assessment, question of limitation in assessment proceedings, entitlement to raise dispute regarding limitation as a question of law.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Kerala High Court, delivered by Justice Abdul Rehim, pertains to a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition (W.P.(C) 23927/2018) concerning an order of assessment (Ext.P1) under the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act. The main ground of challenge in the writ petition was the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, citing a previous judgment in a related case (W.P.(C) 11335/2018) where the issue was held against the appellant.

The contention raised in the writ appeal was that the Single Judge failed to consider other grounds, particularly the initiation of assessment proceedings beyond the statutory time limit, rendering the assessment proceedings time-barred. The appellant argued that the question of limitation was raised before the assessing authority, despite not being specifically mentioned in the writ petition, and should be allowed as a question of law.

The Court noted that the previous judgment only covered the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act and that the ground of limitation was not addressed. As the question of limitation was raised before the assessing authority and could be considered a question of law, the Court allowed it to be raised in the writ petition. Since the Single Judge did not consider any grounds apart from the validity of Section 174, the Court remitted the writ petition for fresh consideration, specifically on the question of limitation.

Consequently, the writ appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for fresh consideration by the Single Judge, focusing on the points raised, including the question of limitation. The Registry was directed to post the writ petition before the relevant Single Judge, and any interim order existing before the dismissal of the writ petition was to be revived and continue in force.