Engineering Combines vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 05 March 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WP(C).No.5608 OF 2020(A) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5608 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER/S: ENGINEERING COMBINES, FORMERLY AT 88, 3RD FLOOR, GOPALAPRABHU ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, E. MATHEW JOHN BY ADVS. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN DR.ANIES GEORGE RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SECOND CIRCLE, MINI CIVIL STATION, THRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN,PIN-682 301 2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PIN-683 576 OTHER PRESENT: GP DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5608 OF 2020(A) 2

JUDGMENT The present writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 25 (1) for the year 2011-12 dated 28.3.2019. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the by virtue of Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act assessment is to be proceeded 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 petitioners. 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.5608 OF 2020(A) 3

Learned Government Pleader do not dispute the date of issuance of notice. Section 21 (5) of the KVAT Act empowers the authorities to initiate the assessment proceedings alleged to have been escaped within a period of six years and not thereafter. On going through the provisions interpreted by this Court in the judgment cited (supra), I am of the view that Ext.P4 is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/

WP(C).No.5608 OF 2020(A) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER WITH REGARD TO THE STOPPAGE OF BUSINESS, DATED 28.04.2017 EXHIBIT P2OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC 7 OF THE R.R. ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PARTNERS OF THE PETITIONER FIRM, DATED 17.02.2020 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P3OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC 34 OF THE R.R. ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PARTNERS OF THE PETITIONER FIRM DATED 17.02.2020 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P4OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SEC 25 (1) FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 DATED 28.03.2019