Judgment
WA NO. 1700 OF 2021 1 2025:KER:25862 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 1700 OF 2021 (THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2020 IN WP(C) NO.6857 OF 2020) APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):
1 FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM NO.2 STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
2 STATE TAX OFFICER 1ST CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT TAX TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.
4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
K. SASILAL AGED 60 YEARS PROPRIETOR, KALA AGENCIES, THOTTAPPALLY P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 561.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1700 OF 2021 2 2025:KER:25862 JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Writ Appeal, preferred by the Revenue, impugning the judgment dated 16.03.2020 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.6857 of 2020.
2.The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:
The writ petitioner had approached this Court aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the appellants herein under Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the KGST Act) in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005. The notice under Section 17D of the KGST Act issued to the writ petitioner was dated 20.11.2019. In other words, the notice was issued more than 14 years after the end of the assessment year in question.
3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition found that although Section 17D of the KGST Act did not prescribe any period of limitation, and the said aspect was clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in Betty Sebastian v. Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes and Others [(2018) 59 GSTR 275], the delay in the instant case was of 14 years, which could not be seen as reasonable under any circumstances when viewed against the statutory framework under the KGST Act.
4. Before us, although it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader, placing reliance on Betty Sebastian (Supra), and the judgment dated 24.10.2024 of this Court in ST.Rev.No.11 of 2021, which followed the judgment in Betty Sebastian (Supra), we find that even in the
WA NO. 1700 OF 2021 3 2025:KER:25862 Betty Sebastian's case, the Division Bench had found that if there was an unreasonable delay in issuing the notice, the protection granted for the proceedings under Section 17D would not be available. In our view, to condone a delay of 14 years in issuing a notice under Section 17D, on the specious plea that Section 17D does not prescribe for a period of limitation, would tantamount to doing violence to the language used in the statutory provision, which deals with “fast track assessments”, and also run contrary to its inherent scheme. It is also significant that under the KGST Act, the maximum period for reopening assessments was 4 years, which could probably be stretched to 5 or 6 years on the justification that Section 17D did not specifically provide for a period of limitation. A delay of 14 years for the issuance of notice under Section 17D, more so when the statute in question itself has been repealed in relation to the commodity in question, and the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was introduced, cannot be justified under any circumstances. We, therefore, find no merit in this Writ appeal, and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE mns