9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was not taken into consideration by the assessing authority - the exemption claimed by the petitioner was not available through out the assessment year 1999-00. A reading of Section 17(6) shows that the section casts a liability on the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. Completion of the assessment does not mean communication of the order of assessment. Ext.P10 assessment was completed on 28.03.2006 and not on 23.09.2013 or even 4.09.2006, as contended by the petitioner - In this context, it may be pertinent to consider the amendment brought to the KGST Act, by virtue of the Finance Act, 2005. Neither Ext.P11 nor any of the decisions therein lays down the position that an assessment order would be completed only on the order being served on the assessee. Hence, the contention that Ext.P10 order was issued beyond time, is liable to be rejected. There are no sustainable ground of challenge against Ext.P13 or any valid reason for granting the reliefs sought in the writ petition - petition dismissed. - W. P. (C) No. 39352 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2019 - MR. V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dues. According to the petitioner, the assessment for the year 1999-00 was completed as per Ext.P9 order dated 15.3.2004 and the assessment for 2000-01 was completed under Ext.P10 order dated 28.3.2006. It is submitted that Ext.P10 order was communicated only on 23.9.2013, which was twelve years from the close of the relevant assessment year (2000-01). It is submitted that the limitation period for completing the assessment for the year 2000-01 had expired on 31.3.2005 in view of the period of four years prescribed in Section 17 (6) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as amended from time to time. As the period of limitation had expired, Ext.P10 assessment order was invalid and therefore, the petitioner did not prefer a statutory appeal against Ext.P10. Later, communication was issued from the office of the first respondent to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of sales tax arrears for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01. Subsequently, Ext.P13 was issued by the first respondent correcting the amount due towards the sales tax arrears as ₹ 33,12,536/- instead of ₹ 38,41,934/- mentioned in Ext.P12. The wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y notice, which included the demand for sales tax dues for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01 also. On a perusal of Ext.P7 judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.37300 of 2010, it is evident that only the assessment orders for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98 were set aside by that judgment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment was applicable for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01 also. Hence, the contentions put forward by the petitioner, based on Exts.P7 and P8 judgments, are without substance and hence rejected. 4. The next question to be considered is as to whether Ext.P9 assessment order for the year 1999-00 is bad for the reason that the exemption available to rubble till January, 2000 was not taken into consideration by the assessing authority. A reading of Ext.P9 would show that, in spite of a direction to produce the books of accounts, the same were not produced. The work schedule or work agreement were also not produced, in the absence of which the assessing authority had found it impossible to ascertain the materials required for the work. No evidence was produced to prove that the materials used in the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31.3.2001 and therefore, the four year period would end by 31.03.2005. It is submitted that Ext.P10 assessment order is dated 28.03.2006 and is therefore, beyond the four year period. It is also submitted that even though Ext.P10 is dated 28.03.2006, it was served on the petitioner only on 23.09.2013 and that even as per the entry in the departmental records, the despatch date of Ext.P10 order is 4.09.2006, which is beyond the period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P11 Circular stipulate that an assessment order is complete and takes effect only on communication of that order. It is submitted that inasmuch as Ext.P10 order was issued beyond the period of limitation, the same is a nullity and that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for realisation of the demand under Ext.P10 is therefore, illegal. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Sarwan Kumar and another v. Madan Lal Aggarwal [(2003) 4 SCC 147] and Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad and others [(2007) 2 SCC 335] to canvas the position that an order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
