Cochin Fire Tech vs. The Assistant Commissioner - Kerala High Court, 01 June 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.10725 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: COCHIN FIRE TECH 36/159, SN COMPLEX, BANERJI ROAD, NEAR NORTH OVER BRIDGE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.P SREEKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN DR.ANIES GEORGE RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE-111, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN-682 015. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 002. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.10725 OF 2020(M) 2

JUDGMENT

Writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the KVAT') for the assessment year 2011-12. 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.P2 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 & Others [2020 (1) KHC 127].

WP(C).No.10725 OF 2020(M) 3

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.P2 is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.10725 OF 2020(M) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, DATED 24.5.2018 EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SEC 25(1) FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 12.12.2018