Allowed

Baby Cherian, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2020WP(C)/34/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a government contractor against tax assessment orders passed by the state tax authorities. The court held that the impugned assessment proceedings were barred by the law of limitation under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, relying on the precedent set in Commercial Tax Officer v. S. Najeem. Consequently, the court

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings under Exhibits P-1 and P-2 are set aside as they are barred by the prescribed period of limitation.

Baby Cherian, Vs State of Kerala — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.34 OF 2020(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BABY CHERIAN, CHELLIAMPURATH HOUSE, KIZHUMURI P O, RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686663.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD) SRI.H.NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES DEPARTMENT, 9TH FLOOR, TAX TOWER, KILLPPALAM, KARAMANA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES DEPARTMENT, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-682002. 4 THE STATE TAX OFFICER II (WORKS CONTRACT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES DEPARTMENT, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN-682002.

¶13

SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT.PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.34 OF 2020(D)

¶16

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

===========================

¶19

W.P(C) No.34 of 2020

¶20

===========================

¶21

Dated this the 07^th day of January, 2020

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:

¶24

The petitioner is a Government Works Contractor and an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, bearing TIN-32151015494.

¶25

The petitioner had duly filed returns before the Assessing Authority showing taxable turnover of Rs.82,92,313/- during the year 2011-2012. The 4^th respondent initiated proceedings barred by the law of limitation to determine the tax payable for the assessment year 2011-2012 by issuing notice dated 28.02.2019 under Sec.25(1) of the KVAT Act through e-mail communication to the petitioner. The 4^th respondent issued order dated 30.09.2019 ignoring the period of limitation under Sec.25(1) of the KVAT Act. The 4^th respondent issued Ext.P-2 notice of demand for an amount of Rs.4,86,159/-.

¶26

It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition with the following prayer.

¶27

“........... to stay the operation of and all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibits P1 and P2, pending disposal of the writ petition.”

¶28

WP(C).No.34 OF 2020(D)

¶29

¶30

Heard Sri.S.M.Prem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶31

After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the matter in issue raised in this case is fully covered in favour of the petitioner, as per the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in Commercial Tax Officer v. S.Najeem [2018 (4) KHC 666 (DB)] and the impugned assessment orders have been passed in flagrant violation of the limitation bar and hence, relief should be granted to the petitioner in the light of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforecited S.Najeem’s case (supra) [2018 (4) KHC 666 (DB)]. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned Exts.P-1 & P-2 proceedings are set aside, as they are barred by the prescribed period of limitation.

¶32

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶35

vgd

¶36

WP(C).No.34 OF 2020(D)

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.32151015494/2011-12 DATED 30.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND NO.66/2019-20 DATED 31.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR/RETURN PERIOD OF 2011-12.

Baby Cherian, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Cherian, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kgm Gold Vs the State Tax Officer

Jacob John Vs Indian Overseas Bank

T.N. Sankarapillai Vs the Intelligence Officer

M.V. Beena Vs the District Collector

Mangalam Gold Vs the State Tax Officer (Ib)

M/S. Penco Marbles and Granites Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)