Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2020 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (3) TMI 1051 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues:
1. Validity of re-assessment proceedings under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the period 2004-2005.
2. Applicability of Section 17D and Section 19 of the Act, 1963 in the re-assessment proceedings.
3. Time limitation for re-opening assessment under Section 17D.
4. Justification for the re-assessment initiated after a significant period.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements for fast track assessment under Section 17D.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged re-assessment proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the period 2004-2005. The petitioner contended that the assessment was completed and tax dues were paid for the relevant period. However, a notice for re-assessment was issued based on certain observations, leading to the petitioner's grievance.

2. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of Section 17D and Section 19 of the Act, 1963. The petitioner argued that re-opening of assessment under Section 17D requires fresh material on tax evasion and is subject to a time limit as per Section 19. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that Section 17D does not prescribe a limitation period, thus justifying the re-assessment notice.

3. The petitioner emphasized that the re-assessment notice issued beyond the prescribed period of five years, as per Section 19, is untenable. Referring to the case law of Philips India Ltd., the petitioner argued that the outer time limit for assessment had lapsed, rendering the re-assessment invalid.

4. The court examined the timeline of events, noting that the re-assessment notice was issued almost 14 years after the relevant assessment year. Despite the absence of additional material or justification for the delayed re-assessment, the court found the proceedings lacking in statutory compliance and reasonable grounds.

5. In the absence of concrete evidence or compliance with procedural requirements for fast track assessment under Section 17D, the court concluded that the re-assessment order and demand notice were unsustainable. Consequently, the court quashed the assessment order and demand notice, ruling in favor of the petitioner and allowing the writ petition.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates