9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the relevant provisions in the Finance Act, time for completing assessment in respect of the assessment year has been specifically extended by the State Government, to the requisite extent and as such, the CST assessment proceedings initiated/finalized by the authorities by issuing pre-assessment notice cannot be held as barred under any circumstances. Petition dismissed. - W. A. No. 1076 of 2013, O.T. Rev. 180 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 40931 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2017 - P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON AND A. HARIPRASAD, JJ. M. Gopikrishnan Ndmbiar, P. Gopinath, P. Benny Thomas and K. John Mathai for the petitioner. C. K. Govindan, Special Government Pleader (Taxes), for the respondents. JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon , J. A common thread connects all these cases and hence they have been grouped together and heard accordingly. The question to be considered is, whether the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act ['CST Act' in short] could be completed by the authorities of the Department of Commercial Taxes of the State availing the extended time for the relevant year, in terms of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act/Rules ['KGST Act/Rules' in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 6(7) of the CST (Kerala) Rules was sought to be read into Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules. It was accordingly, that interference was sought for, seeking to set aside Exts. P1, P2, P3 and P4 notices and all further proceedings. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge, adverting to the relevant provisions of law and the judicial precedents in the subject matter held that, in so far as there was no time limit under Rule 6(5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules, the request made by the appellant, to read time factor in respect of reassessment under Rules 6(7) and 6(8) of the Rules, into Rule 6(5) was not liable to be acceded to, and that Section 17 of the KGST Act would come to the rescue of the authorities of the Commercial Taxes Department. Section 17 of the KGST Act, as amended by the Finance Act 2009, has extended the time to complete assessment in question upto 31.03.2010 and this being the position, Ext. P1, P3 and P4 notices were well within time. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file objection to Exts. P1, P3 and P4 notices and raise all available contentions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 20.09.2011 passed by the first appellate authority. Though the petitioner/assessee had moved the Forum by way of second appeal, it also did not yield any result and the appeal was dismissed as per Annexure AIII, holding that there was no time limit under Rule 6(5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules and that the time limit prescribed for reassessment under Rules 6(7) and 6(8) of the Rules, could not be read into Rule 6(5) of the said Rules. It was observed that, under such circumstances, the authority could fall back to Section 17 of the KGST Act, as mentioned in the Finance Act 2009, which enabled the authority to complete assessment for the year 2005-2006 on or before 31.03.2011. Since the assessment was effected within time, it was held that no interference was warranted. This is under challenge in this revision petition, raising similar contentions as raised in the writ appeal. Though an interim order of stay was granted for a period of four months on 13.11.2015 in I.A. No. 2916 of 2015, it is seen that same was not extended any further. 7. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 40931 of 2016 is an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent for the purpose of assessment under the CST Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly, no time limit is prescribed under Rule 6 (5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules to complete the CST assessment and as such, it has to be completed within reasonable time, following the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision. What is the reasonable time , alone forms the significant question. In this context, the appellant/petitioners seek to contend that, in so far as the re-assessment under Rule 6 (7) and 6(8) of the CST (Kerala) Rules is stipulated to be completed within 'four' years, this period shall be considered as the reasonable period, to be read into Rule 6(5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules. This proposition does not appear to be attractive, as the field is governed by Section 9(2) of the CST Act, read with Rule 6(5) of CST (Kerala) Rules. The power and procedure under the relevant provisions of State enactments/Rules enables the authorities to complete assessment under the respective Statute. 11. Section 9(2) of CST Act reads as follows : 9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties:- (1) xxxxxx xxxxxx (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, re-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behind such conscious decision is not the job of this Court. The law has to be taken as it is, more so, when there is no ambiguity as to the scope of the provision. By virtue of the words subject to other provisions . ... under Section 9 (2) of the CST Act, the effect is only that, where there is any specific provision in the CST Act/Rules, the corresponding provision made under State Act/Rules cannot be made applicable. Admittedly, since no time limit is prescribed for the assessment under the CST Act, and as per Rule 6(5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules, it is quite open for the authorities to bank upon similar provision under the KGST Act and KVAT Act and the Rules to have the assessment proceedings finalized. By virtue of the relevant provisions in the Finance Act, time for completing assessment in respect of the assessment year has been specifically extended by the State Government, to the requisite extent and as such, the CST assessment proceedings initiated/finalized by the authorities by issuing pre-assessment notice cannot be held as barred under any circumstances. 13. It is also relevant to mention in this context, that a single Judge of this Court [one of us - PRRM ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
