Leela Electric Power Services vs. The State Tax Officer (Works Contract)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.11291 OF 2020(J) PETITIONER/S: LEELA ELECTRIC POWER SERVICES PAMPAKUDA P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686667, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. ELDO THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682018. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERRY, KOCH-682002, 3 COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695022, 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.11291 OF 2020(J) 2 JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 notice passed by the 1st respondent under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the KVAT') for the assessment year 2011-2012 dated 13.02.2019. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, assessment is to be processed within five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates. It is also submitted that the time limit prescribed had been amended to six years from five years as per the amendment brought in the statute book by virtue of Kerala Finance Act. It is also contended that Ext.P1 notice is passed without proper service of notice to the petitioner. The controversy pertaining to issuing a notice beyond the period of limitation no longer exists in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Baiju AA & Others vs. State Tax Officer [2020 (1) KHC 39] and MCP Enterprises & Others vs. State of Kerala & Others [2020 (1) KHC 127].

WP(C).No.11291 OF 2020(J) 3 issuance of notice. Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act empowers the authorities to initiate the assessment proceedings alleged to have been escaped within a period of five years as amendment in 2017 has been held to be prospective. On going through the provisions interpreted by this Court in the judgment cited (supra), I am of the view that Ext.P1 is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak

WP(C).No.11291 OF 2020(J) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE NOTICE NO.32151044575/2011-12 DATED 13.02.2019. EXHIBIT P2OF THE REPLY DATED 20.03.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE REVISED NOTICE NO.32151044575/2011-12 DATED 24.09.2019. EXHIBIT P4OF THE REPLY DATED 08.11.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. 32151044575/2011-12 DATED 28.11.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12.