P.K.Ltraders vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax-I
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI THUR AY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 11604 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: P.K.L TRADERS PP VI/141, 142, PULIKKAL, VALIYAPRAMBA, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BASHEER.P.N.O., AGED 48, S/O.MOHAMMED ALI BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-I STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM- 676505 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM-676505 3 THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE GST, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002 GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.11604/19 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner prays for Writ of Mandamus to quash Exts. P3 and P5 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. 32100433929/2011-12 dated 15-03-2013 completed the assessment. The 2nd respondent issued Ext. P2 notice under Section 56 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner replied to the notice in Ext. P2, the first and foremost objection taken by the petitioner is under sub-section (c) of Section 56 (2) the Act which reads thus: (2) The Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order 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
W.P.(C)No.11604/19 3 the 2nd respondent among other findings are challenged in this writ petition.
The learned Government Pleader opposes the writ prayer by contending that the petitioner has effective remedy of further revision under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner as well could avail the statutory remedy and there could be a direction from this Court to consider the objection of limitation raised by the petitioner in the manner prescribed in law.
The counsel for the petitioner does not object to availing the remedy under Section 59 of the Act but contends that having regarded to a question of importance by way of limitation is raised by the petitioner, the interest of the petitioner is reasonably protected keeping in view the swift decision taken through Ext.P5. I have perused Exts.P3 and P5 and I am of the view that the petitioner can be relegated to work out the relief available under Section 59 within four weeks from today by enclosing a copy of this order and this Court directs that no coercive step is taken by the respondents pursuant to Ext.P5 till the revision is disposed of and order communicated to the
W.P.(C)No.11604/19 4 petitioner. The revision filed by the petitioner is heard and disposed of in four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Ac
W.P.(C)No.11604/19 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 11.3.2013 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.2.2019 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.3.2019 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.3.2019 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.3.2019 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.10183/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 02.04.2019 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //// PA TO JUDGE
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.