M/S. Bharti Airtel Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUE AY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 7TH ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.12941 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED SL AVENUE, N.H. BYPASS, KUNDANOOR, MARADU, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MRS. SHEENA SAMUEL. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682015. 4 SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHARTI AIRTEL RANGE, RANGE V, OURGAON, HARYANA-122001. R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R4 BY SRI.RAMAVARMA REGHUNATHAN THAMBURAN, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS OTHER PRESENT: SR GP SRI C K GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.12941 OF 2020(P) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 29th day of September 2020 Writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the KVAT') for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 18.03.2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, assessment is to be processed within five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates. It is also submitted that the time limit prescribed had been amended to six years from five years as per the amendment brought in the statute book by virtue of Kerala Finance Act. It is also contended that Ext.P4 notice is passed without proper service of notice to the petitioner. The controversy pertaining to issuing a notice beyond the period of limitation no longer exists in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Baiju AA & Others vs. State Tax Officer [2020 (1) KHC 39] and MCP Enterprises & Others vs. State of Kerala &
WP(C).No.12941 OF 2020(P) 3 Others [2020 (1) KHC 127].
Learned Government Pleader do not dispute the date of issuance of notice. Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act empowers the authorities to initiate the assessment proceedings alleged to have been escaped within a period of five years as amendment in 2017 has been held to be prospective. On going through the provisions interpreted by this Court in the judgment cited (supra), I am of the view that Ext.P6 is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. AMIT RAWAL sab JUDGE
WP(C).No.12941 OF 2020(P) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE KVAT RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2OF THE SERVICE TAX RETURN RELEVANT TO THE PERIOD FIRST HALF OF 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3OF THE SERVICE TAX RETURN RELEVANT TO THE PERIOD 2013-14 FOR THE SECOND HALF. EXHIBIT P4OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/01/2020. EXHIBIT P5OF THE REPLY DATED 26/02/2020. EXHIBIT P6OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18/03/2020. EXHIBIT P7OF NOTICE DEMAND DATED 18/05/2020. EXHIBIT P8OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.1409/2015 DATED 10/08/2015. EXHIBIT P9OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE UNION OF INDIA IN WRIT PETITION 20522/2015.
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.