9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P1 consolidated attachment notice dated 28.11.2008, under the Revenue Recovery Act. The demand raised in Ext.P1 was a consolidated demand, which contained the demand with respect to the sales tax arrears for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01 also. As against the assessment year 1999-00, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19542 of 2005, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, directing the appeal against the assessment order to be disposed of within three months from the date of remittance of one third of the demand. According to the petitioner, the fate of the appeal was not communicated to the assessee. While so, the petitioner was issued with a sale notice dated 19.1.2009, proposing to sell his immovable pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the assessing authority had failed to complete the assessment relating to the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01, as directed in Exts.P7 and P8 judgments and therefore, the assessment orders, on the basis of which revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, was invalid. 3. The first question to be considered is as to whether, any obligation to pass fresh assessment orders for the years 1999-00 and 2000-01, was cast upon the first respondent on the basis of the directions contained in Exts. P7 and P8 judgments. Even going by the case put forward by the petitioner, W.P.(C) No.6016 of 2009 was filed challenging the demand raised pursuant to the assessment orders for the years 1999-00 and 2000-01. That writ petition was disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials, the assessing officer was forced to reject the return and to complete the assessment by estimating the turn over to the best of his judgment, as provided under Section 5(c) of the KGST Act. It may also be pertinent to note that in the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that Ext.P9 order was challenged before the appellate authority and that by Order No.808/04 dated 20.9.2007, the appeal was dismissed. It is also stated that from 1.1.2000 onwards, rubble was taxable and therefore, the claim for exemption for the cost of rubble was not allowable for the period from 1.1.2000 to 31.3.2001. In my considered opinion, the assessee having failed to produce the requisite documents for the purpose of claiming exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod 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 sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year 2000-01 shall be completed on or before 31st March, 2006." Since Ext.P10 assessment order was completed on 28.03.2006, it was within the time provided under the fifth proviso to Section 17(6), as incorporated by the Finance Act, 2005. Ext.P11 Circular would not help the petitioner in any manner, since that circular was issued in the context of inordinate delay in completing the assessment and serving of assessment orders on the assessee leading to expiry of the period of limitation. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
