E.Mohammed vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax-1
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI THUR AY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.20285 of 2019 PETITIONER: E.MOHAMMED PROPRIETOR, M/S. T.N.R. TRADERS, THAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-1 STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SPRCIAL CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 3 THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF STATE GST, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2- WP(C).No.20285 of 2019 JUDGMENT The petitioner prays for writ of mandamus to quash Exts.P3 and P4 issued by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the writ petition are briefly stated thus. The 1st respondent through Ext.P1 Order No.32100417617C/2011-12 dated 09.01.2013 completed the assessment. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 notice under Section 56 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner filed reply dated 12.03.2019 to the notice in Ext.P2. The 2nd respondent later cancelled the assessment order through Ext.P3 and issued fresh assessment order as Ext.P4. The petitioner has filed Ext.P6 Revision Petition before the 3rd respondent. The objection taken by the petitioner is under sub-section (c) of Section 56 (2) of the Act which reads thus: (2) The Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order
-3- WP(C).No.20285 of 2019 under sub-section (1) if,- (a)...... (b)....., or (c) more than four years have expired from the year in which the order referred to therein was passed.
The 2nd respondent adverting to the objection of limitation raised by the petitioner finds that the starting point of limitation is from the date of detection of fraud. This finding of the 2nd respondent among other findings are challenged in this writ petition.
I have perused Exts.P3 and P4. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 revision petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The recovery proceedings pursuant to the order under
-4- WP(C).No.20285 of 2019 revision before the 3rd respondent is stayed for two months from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS
-5- WP(C).No.20285 of 2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 9.1.2013. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY TEH 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 29.3.2019. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.11604/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 11.4.2019. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.4.2019. RESPONDENTS'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.