9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 102 - SCH - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of reassessment order - reassessment made by the Assessing Authority for the year 2000-01 was beyond the period of 5 years - HELD THAT - After hearing learned counsel for the parties for quite some time, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned dated 29.01.2019 but since the petitioner/company has not challenged the reassessment for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05 on merits and right of appeal indeed was available to it, we consider appropriate to observe that if appeal is being preferred by the petitioner/company within 60 days from today before the Appellate Authority against the order of reassessment years 2001-02 to 2004- 05, the same shall be treated to be within a period of limitation and the Appellate Authority may examine the appeal on its own on merits in accordance with law. It is further made clear that all contentions under the law are available for the petitioner/company to be raised before the Appellate Authority. SLP dismissed.
Issues:
Assailing action of Revenue Authorities invoking sub-Section (5) of Section 6 of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 for reassessment for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the reassessment directly before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the Assessing Authority lacked the competence to make reassessment for previous years due to the introduction of Sub-section (5) to Section 6 w.e.f. 20.08.2005. The High Court, after examining the Act and sub-Section (5) to Section 6, concluded that reassessment for previous five years to the amendment could be conducted without being considered retrospective. Citing the judgment in the case of "Addl. Commissioner (Legal) & Anr. Versus Jyoti Traders & Anr." (1999) 2 SCC 77, the High Court rejected the contention regarding the limitation for assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05. The High Court ruled that reassessment for the year 2000-01 was beyond the 5-year limit, granting partial relief to the petitioner. However, reassessments for the subsequent years 2001-02 to 2004-05 were upheld. The petitioner informed the Court that assessments for the years 2008-09 to 2012-13 were pending with the Assessing Authority after being remitted by the appellate authority with certain directions. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment but noted that the petitioner had not challenged the reassessments for the years 2001-02 to 2004-05 on merits, despite the right of appeal being available. The Court observed that if the petitioner filed an appeal within 60 days from the date of the order before the Appellate Authority against the reassessments for 2001-02 to 2004-05, it would be considered within the limitation period. The Appellate Authority was directed to examine the appeal on its own merits in accordance with the law, allowing the petitioner to raise all contentions under the law before the Appellate Authority. In conclusion, the special leave petitions were dismissed with the observations mentioned above, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
