Intersource Exports (P) LTD. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Intersource Exports (P) Ltd., challenged a notice (Ext.P1) issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act'). The notice pertained to the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner argued that a previous High Court judgment (Ext.P3) had directed that assessments due to expire by March 31, 2017, could be reopened until March 31, 2018, due to an amendment. Although Ext.P1 was dated March 18, 2018, it was served on March 25, 2019, proposing a hearing on March 30, 2019. The petitioner contended that the date on Ext.P1 was a mistake and should have been March 18, 2019, making the proceedings time-barred as per the earlier judgment.

Held

The Court held that there was no material to conclude that Ext.P1 notice was actually issued on March 18, 2018, as stated. It was deemed highly unlikely that a notice dated March 18, 2018, would not be served until March 25, 2019. Furthermore, the proposed hearing date of March 30, 2019, on a notice dated March 18, 2018, was considered inconceivable. Therefore, the Court concluded that the date '18.03.2018' in Ext.P1 was a typographical error and the notice was actually issued on March 18, 2019. Consequently, the Court found that the issue was covered against the respondent by the binding inter partes judgment in Ext.P3, which limited proceedings to March 31, 2018. As the notice was issued after this date, the proceedings could not be continued. The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P1.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice (Ext.P1) issued by the respondent under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2011-12 is barred by limitation, considering the previous judgment of this Court (Ext.P3)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Ext.P3 judgment clearly stipulated that proceedings under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act for the year 2011-12 could only continue up to March 31, 2018. They argued that Ext.P1, though dated March 18, 2018, was served much later on March 25, 2019, and proposed a hearing on March 30, 2019. This delay and the proposed hearing date suggested that the date on Ext.P1 was a typographical error and the notice was actually issued on March 18, 2019, which is beyond the period permitted by Ext.P3. Therefore, the proceedings should be quashed. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that Ext.P1 was issued within the time specified by Ext.P3, even if service was delayed. They suggested the delay in service might be due to the petitioner's earlier writ petition being disposed of on December 6, 2019. However, they did not dispute that the notice dated March 18, 2018, was served on March 25, 2019.