Judgment
W.A. No.43 of 2021
1 2025:KER:26015
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. 43 OF 2021 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2020 IN W.P.(C).NO.23129 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) :
1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER-II (WORKS CONTRACT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) :
M/S ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LTD 3D, EC CHAMBERS, 92, G N CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI, PIN - 600 017 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECH) SREENESH S.
BY ADV K KRISHNA FOR THE RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.43 of 2021
2 2025:KER:26015
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Writ Appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 30.10.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23129 of 2020.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
In the writ petition, the respondent/writ petitioner had impugned Ext.P1 notice dated 18.1.2020 issued under Section 25(1) read with Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short, “the KVAT Act”) for the assessment year 2013-2014 and the subsequent assessment order (Ext.P3) that was passed in relation to the respondent/petitioner on 21.3.2020. The challenge in the writ petition was essentially on the ground of limitation, where it was contended that the notice issued to the respondent/petitioner under Section 25(1) was beyond the five- year period of limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act as it stood till 1.4.2017. The learned Single Judge followed the judgment of this Court in Biju A.A. and Others Vs. State Tax Officer and Others [2020 (1) KHC 39] and found that inasmuch as in the instant case, the period of limitation with respect to the assessment year
W.A. No.43 of 2021
3 2025:KER:26015
2013-2014 had expired on 31.3.2019, Ext.P1 notice dated 18.1.2020 issued under Section 25(1) read with Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2013-2014 was barred by limitation. It was based on the said reasoning that the writ petition was allowed by quashing the impugned notice and order.
3. Before us, it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the assessment year in question is 2013-2014 and consequent to the amendment of Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act through Finance Act, 2017, the limitation period for issuing notice had been enhanced from five years to six years with effect from 1.4.2017. Accordingly, when, by the time the notice was issued to the respondent/assessee on 18.1.2020, the limitation period for issuing the notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act had gone up to six years from the end of the assessment year. The notice dated 18.1.2020 issued for the assessment year 2013-2014 was, therefore, within the limitation period under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act as it then stood consequent to the amendment in 2017.
4. We find force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader.
5. In almost similar circumstances, we had, by our judgment dated 6.1.2025 in W.A. No.1295 of 2020, found that in respect of the notices issued after the amendment to Section 25(1) in 2017,
W.A. No.43 of 2021
4 2025:KER:26015
the period of limitation to be reckoned to determine whether the notice was barred by time or not was six years from the end of the assessment year. Since the notice impugned in this proceeding was within six-year period, and the learned Single Judge appears to have proceeded on a mistaken assessment of facts, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal by dismissing the writ petition.
6. We make it clear that it would be open to the respondent/assessee to approach the first appellate authority under the KVAT Act in a challenge against the impugned assessment order by filing a statutory appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If the appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period, it should be treated as filed within time for the purposes of the KVAT Act.
Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
Sd/- EASWARAN S.
JUDGE NS