9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices were challenged on the ground that respondent is bound to maintain books of accounts only for a period of four years after the assessment year. It was pointed out that Exts.P1 to P14 notices were issued beyond the period stipulated in Rule 32 and the respondent is not bound to produce the books of accounts as directed in Exts. P1 to P14. It was also pointed out that Section 17(6) stipulates that any assessment under this Section shall be completed within a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. Reference was also made to the decision in Geo Sea Foods v. Additional Sales Tax Officer 119 STC 237 and submitted that pending assessments are to be completed within a reasonable time. Applying the same principle, according to the respondent, Exts. P1 to P14 notices are also liable to be quashed. Reference was also made to Section 17A of the Act and submitted that Exts. P1 to P14 would not fall under that Section as well. Further it is also pointed that though respondent had filed O.P.No. 2805 of 1996 this Court had granted stay only against the assessment of stock transfer between two divisions of the company and there was no bar in complet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7A of the Act all assessments prior to the assessment year 1.4.1993 were kept alive and there was no inhibition under the Act to complete the assessment. 5. Senior Counsel Sri P.K. Kurien on the other hand submitted that respondent is not obliged to keep the books of accounts for four years after the assessment years and hence Exts. P1 to P14 notices are liable to be quashed since they are beyond the scope of Rule 32 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. Counsel submitted in any view of the matter, authorities could have completed the assessment and the stay obtained by the assessee in O.P. No. 2805 of 1996 was restricted only against the stock transfer between two divisions of the respondent company for the year 1979-80 and for other assessment years, which according to the counsel never stood in the way of the assessing authority in completing the assessment. 6. Learned single Judge referred to Rule 32 and took the view that if the four year period prescribed in the rule is already over by the time the substitution was made on 7.11.1994 by SRO 1514/94 the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to call upon the assessee to produce the books of accounts in respect of those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt of notice failing which assessee was informed that the assessment would be completed. Assessee was fortunate to obtain stay from this Court not only in respect of the assessment year covered by Ext. P3 but also for the subsequent assessment years till the disposal of the Original Petition. Learned single Judge of this Court granted stay on 16.2.1996 and we have no hesitation to point out there has been laches and negligence on the part of the Salestax Department in not taking any steps to get the stay vacated or to take steps for early disposal of the case. Because of the interim order of stay obtained by the assessee the entire assessment for the period 1979-80 to 1992-93 covered by the proceedings were kept pending. Assessee is now trying to make capital out of the interim order obtained by it contending that the assessee had not kept the books of accounts for more than four years and consequently assessing authority cannot proceed with the assessment proceedings. 8. Learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the Original Petition No 2805 of 2996 on 25.7.2005 directing the assessee to prefer detailed objection to the pre-assessment notice. True while O.P.No 2805 of 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts for a particular period subsequent to the prescribed period. The court held as follows: Thus, it will be noticed that not preserving the required documents for the statutory period prescribed by Section 12A(3) of the said Act and Rule 41-A of the said Rule attracted penal consequences. If, however, a dealer did not preserve his documents after the expiry of the prescribed period, no such consequences could be visited upon him. From this, however, it does not follow that the said Section 12A(3) or the said Rule 41-A also casted a converse obligation upon the dealer concerned to destroy the documents which he till then was required to preserve. The statutory obligation upon the dealer was to preserve documents for the specified period. Thereafter it is left to his volition whether he should preserve them or not. If he did not preserve them and they became necessary for him as his evidence in support of any claim for exemption or deduction which he put forward in his assessment proceedings, he must face the consequences, which all litigants, who fail to produce evidence in court must face, namely, he must fail. In the case of claims for deductions made by dealers under Section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s' case, supra, and took the view that the rule was meant to achieve the same object and as directed by the Bombay High Court it was to be observed by the dealers. The rule was required to be applied to all pending assessments since there was no time limit to complete the assessments under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Salestax Act. 11. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts especially in the light of Section 17-A of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 which was inserted by Act 20 of 2000 with effect from 1.4.1993. Section 17-A states as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 17 or Section 18, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority any assessment or reassessment for any year shall be deemed to have been pending completion if, in the case of original assessment, return or turnover for the year or any period of the year relating to any period prior to 1st April, 1993 has been filed or due to be filed subsequent to the 1st day of April, 1993 and/or a notice in the prescribed form had been served upon the dealer and the assessment in respect of which had not been completed and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
