Joint Commissioner Of Tax Payer Services vs. M/S. M.J.Gold

The present review petition has been filed seeking to review the judgment in W.P(C) No.14239 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023 passed by this court. 2.The petitioner / respondent in the review petitioner has filed this W.P (C) No. 14239 of 2023, impugning the orders in Exts. P6, P7 and P8 dated 31.03.2023, extending the period of limitation to complete the assessment under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, (‘the KVAT Act’ for short) in respect of the financial years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015- 2016. This court considered the submissions as well as the provisions and allowed the writ petition on the ground that the limitation in respect of the financial year got expired on 31.03.2020, in respect of the financial year 2014-2015 got expired on 31.03.2021, and in respect of the financial year 2015-2016 got expired on 31.03.2022. 3.Ms. Jasmine M. M, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the Government counsel could not bring to the notice of this court the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, whereby

RP NO. 127 OF 2024 3 considering the extra ordinary situation arisen because of the spread of Covid-19 pandemic, limitation for filing the applications, suits, appeals and all other quasi judicial proceedings was extended. She submits that notices have been issued within the time period extended by the Supreme court. As the said order(s) passed by the Supreme court could not be brought to the notice of this court, an error apparent on the face of the record has occurred in the judgment under review. 4.On the other hand, Mr. Tomson T Emmanuel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Supreme court did not extend the limitation for issuing the notice, and it had merely extended the limitation only for completion of the proceedings before the judicial and quasi judicial authority. The assessing authority cannot be said to be a quasi judicial authority before undertaking the assessment proceedings. The notice was issued in capacity of administrative authority and not as quasi judicial authority. I find no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent in the review petition. This court is of the considered opinion

RP NO. 127 OF 2024 4 that because of non consideration of the orders passed by the supreme court in suo motu Writ Petition No.3/2020, an error apparent on the face of the record has occurred in the impugned judgment and therefore it requires review. Thus the said judgment is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its number to be heard on merit. The review petition is allowed as above. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE SJ